In the midst of the “notable” deaths that occurred last week, there was one which will not receive much attention. A small plane crashed. The lone passenger, the pilot, was killed–burned beyond recognition.
Authorities identify pilot in Southern Utah crash
Published: Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:55 p.m. MDTThe Washington County Sheriff’s Office identified the man who died Tuesday in a small plane crash as Gary Logan, 54, of Las Vegas.
Logan was flying from North Las Vegas Airport to Cedar City when his single engine plane went down and crashed at Utah Hill, near the Utah-Arizona border.
He was supposed to arrive at his destination by 11 a.m. Tuesday. The Cedar City airport alerted the sheriff’s office that a plane might have gone down in their area when he still hadn’t arrived by 2 p.m. The Civil Air Patrol located the crash site a half hour later, said Chief Deputy Rob Tersigni.
There were no other passengers on the plane. The National Transportation Safety Board began its investigation of the accident Wednesday.
— Michael R. McFall
Gary Logan was a long-time friend of our family. He loved to golf, and was one of Gramps’s favorite golfing buddies. He came all the way to Phoenix to see Grandma and Grandpa when they were both recovering from illnesses a year ago.
His family have our sympathy at their loss.
Jesus asked a crowd once, “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul?” (Mark 8:36-37, ESV). We would all do well to dwell on that question while we are alive, because death will come for each of us. Fame, money, and looks desert us, even in this life; they are certainly of no value in the life to come. I don’t know if any of the celebrity triumvirate which passed on last week knew Jesus as Savior; some have hopes, but I have my doubts.
In contrast, Gary knew Jesus as his savior, and he came to know him in part as a result of my grandpa’s witness. Grandpa preceded him in death by just a few months. I’m thankful that we can rejoice that they are truly in a better place, and we will have the opportunity to see them again. That is real hope – a hope that comes out of a personal relationship with the savior, Jesus Christ.
The ESV Study Bible:
16 d All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 thate the man of God [2] may be competent, f equipped g for every good work.
2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture would refer first to the OT but by implication also to at least some NT writings, which by this time were already being considered as Scripture (see 1 Tim. 5:18 and note; 2 Pet. 3:15–16 and note). Breathed out by God translates a Greek word (theopneustos) that does not occur in any other Greek text (biblical or otherwise) prior to this letter. Some therefore suggest that Paul coined this term from words meaning “God” and “breathed,” which is certainly possible. The term stresses the divine origin and thus the authority of Scripture. Paul does not point to the human authors of Scripture as inspired people but says that the writings themselves (“Scripture,” Gk. graphē, “writing,” which in the NT always refers to biblical writings) are the words spoken (“breathed out”) by God. Whereas it seems that Paul and Timothy’s opponents stressed certain aspects or portions of Scripture (e.g., genealogies, 1 Tim. 1:4; cf.Titus 3:9), Paul stresses the authoritativeness of all of Scripture. The divine origin of Scripture is the reason for its power to convert (2 Tim. 3:15) and its usefulness in training (v. 17). Because Scripture comes from God himself, “all” of it is profitable in a range of ways, ultimately leading to righteousness.
2 Tim. 3:17 That (in the sense of “in order that”) refers back to the preceding verse (v. 16), indicating the purpose of Scripture for the believer. man of God. Both the OT background of this phrase (see esv footnote and note on 1 Tim. 6:11–12) and the context show that Paul is thinking specifically of Timothy as his delegate and a leader over the church (see 1 Tim. 1:3–4; 6:11). While this verse applies generally to all believers, Paul’s specific focus here is the preparation of Timothy to continue in his task when Paul is no longer present. equipped for every good work. In a broad sense this includes everything that God calls a believer to do. But, in a specific sense, this also supports the doctrine of the “sufficiency of Scripture,” that is, the idea that the truth contained in Scripture is sufficient in all matters pertaining to doctrine and moral behavior. Although there are no commands outside the Bible that apply to all of God’s people, this does not exclude individual guidance by the Holy Spirit on how to apply the universal commands of Scripture in particular situations (cf. notes on Gal. 5:16; 5:18)
*This is the 2nd post of a 5 post series.
Part 2: Epistemology
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Protestant Reformation is the epistemological aspect. The authority of Rome was not tied as closely to any other tenet of the Christian faith as it was to the doctrine of the justification of knowledge. Moreover, the exegesis of the radical reformers such as Hubmaier and Muntzer was just as opposed to the humanistic hermeneutic of Erasmus as it was to the Roman Church’s claims to authority on the scriptures. On all sides, the question of authority in knowledge was a vital question and was the wood that fueled the fires of controversy in the sixteenth century.
It is perhaps for this reason that John Calvin dedicates two books– and the first two books at that–to epistemology in his Institutes of Christian Religion. In Book I of the Institutes, he presents “general” revelation and its reliability and also “special” revelation, its source and authority. For Calvin, all true knowledge has its source in God alone: “. . . the true light of sound virtue full abundance of every good, and purity of righteousness rest in the Lord alone.” 3 He thus reveals that however much man may know, all of his knowledge is derivative knowledge from God alone. Such a statement is rarely absent from the vast majority of Christian theologians, regardless of creedal affiliation. Even Aquinas, who is often heavily criticized by Calvin, makes similar statements. 4 However, though Christian views of knowledge have often been skeptical, dependent on outside, non-monistic, revelation one finds in Calvin a heavy criticism of the natural ability of man to reason. This skepticism of, as Barth says it, “Natural Theology,” is not so much because Calvin’s cosmological dualism makes man’s knowledge of himself and God dependent upon God’s self revelation, as it is because of his doctrine of man’s state after the fall. 5 For Calvin, the controlling concept in his discourse on natural theology is, “Si integer stetisset Adam.” In other words, natural theology would have been a sound basis for reasoning only if Adam had “remained upright.” John T. McNeil writes of Calvin’s epistemology, “Because of sin no sound theology of this type is possible. Scripture is the only medium of knowing the Creator, and of apprehending his revelation in creation.”6 Many theologians of no small repute have interpreted Calvin to deny any authority whatsoever to natural theology. For instance, Karl Barth argues that Calvin almost completely dismisses its uses– even in scientific inquiry.7 Yet, such an idea seems to be more founded in an acceptance of Immanuel Kant’s “ought implies ability” than it does in Calvin’s actual wording. One instance where Barth’s interpretation of Calvin is questionable is when Calvin refers to natural knowledge as “insufficiently effective,” implying that there is at least some degree to which natural theology is useful. 8 In addition, Calvin explicitly writes, “There is need of art and of more exacting toil in order to investigate the motion of the stars, to determine their assigned stations, to measure their intervals, to note their properties.” 9 What then is the purpose and usefulness of general revelation? General revelation is the knowledge of God that he has revealed in the creation. Man, by use of his reason is capable of looking out to the world around him and discovering all sorts of things. Moreover, he even has a comprehension of divinity. Nonetheless, because of the noetic effects of sin, he willingly suppresses that knowledge and is without excuse. Therefore, for Calvin, natural revelation condemns man and takes away all excuse for ignorance: “They are compelled to know whether they will or not that these are the signs of divinity; yet they conceal them within.”10 Calvin’s view of natural theology then, is not that reason is so flawed that nothing can be obtained by it, nor is it his view that basic functions of observation and scientific inquiry are meaningless. His point is that all human beings, since they are naturally enemies of God, willingly corrupt the true knowledge of God which they already know. Or, more to the current point, the objective physical means of knowledge, reason and written scripture, must be accompanied by the subjective work of the Spirit in the life of humanity to be meaningful and complete.
At this point in Book I, there is a natural division; the subject moves from general revelation in chapters I through IV to special or specific revelation in chapter V. Because mankind has fallen from his original state of epistemological competence, Calvin proposes that God graciously revealed himself to man in a fuller sense. This revelation is a gracious gift from God to his chosen people: “Scripture, gathering up the otherwise confused knowledge of God in our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God.”11 Now, apart from this kind of instruction, all mankind will revert to idolatry and corruption. There is no way, for Calvin, that any man can reason rightly about God apart from his revealed word about himself. Where then, does this revelation originate? Upon what is its authority? Calvin’s emphatic answer is, “Scripture has its authority from God, not from the church.”12 To demonstrate such a point, he argues that the scriptures preceded the Church. Therefore, while the Church assents, upholds, and recognizes the cannon, it does so because the scriptures are the word of its God alone, not because the church has any bearing upon the authority over the scriptures. Much of the conflict, however, lies in the interpretation of Augustine’s statement against the Manicheans: “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the catholic church.”13 Both John Calvin and Martin Luther interpret this statement to mean not that faith was to be placed primarily upon the Church or that the truth of the gospel depends on the Church. Rather, they interpret this statement to indicate that there would be no compulsion for the pagan to believe the gospel were it not for the uniformity of the Church on such doctrines. To them, such passages by the doctors of the Church must be interpreted in light of the conflict with which the doctors were dealing.14 The credibility of the scriptures, or in other words their authority, rests in the firm conviction that God is the Author. read more…
July is here, which means we have a new “theme of the month.” Soon, I hope to put all of the posts for the theme of June into one post so you all can scroll through and read what you might of missed.
We started with the Gospel and now there is no better place to go then Scripture. We we believe about the Bible determines how we approach every doctrine, every text, and how we view everything in life itself. This is a critical issue and it is one that is under great attack in Evangelicalism today.
We are looking forward to this month and I hope all of our readers are as well. We will discuss the inerrancy, infallibility, sufficiency, and authority of Scripture. Also, we will take a look at Sola Scriptura. We are not only going to look at “doctrines” or beliefs about the Bible, but also how the Bible affects us personally. The relationship between the Bible and the Holy Spirit as we read Scripture, how the Bible is used and is sufficient in counseling, etc. will all be areas we touch on.
Our encouragement for how to start this month off: Read Your Bible!
*This is the first post of a five post series.
Introduction
Since Immanuel Kant published A Critique of Pure Reason, western thinkers, not least among them protestants, have taken on a new way of interpreting reality. This can be seen most vividly by a ma jor shift in the way theology is conducted. Dogmas are discussed, debated, and critiqued, history is sub jected to often opposing lenses and interpretations, and universities have been publishing millions upon millions of pages, but it seems that one ma jor presupposition of the interpreter is rarely admitted– that, in epistemology, the “phenomena” never protrudes into the realm of the “noumena.” It is difficult, therefore, for modern interpreters of thought to comprehend a debate which is thoroughly rooted in the contradictory of Kant’s postulation. Yet, I would like to argue that a ma jor point of the Protestant Reformation was to demand that the noumena, that which can be experienced and is thus the “spiritual”, be present in the phenomena, that which can be explained and corresponds to the “physical”. 1 The resulting dualism is central to understanding and categorizing the various characters on both sides of the Reformation debates. For instance, when the dualistic 2 aspect is neglected, the debate among various protestant leaders, such as Luther and Zwingli, over the Eucharist is merely an argument over hermeneutics. However certain it is that this is indeed the case, examining the dualistic tendencies of both Martin Luther and Huldreich Zwingli would reveal the reason for such a hermeneutical disagreement–-differing assumptions about metaphysics.
In this essay, I examine how this dualism plays out in the theology of one of the most significant theologians of the Reformation–-John Calvin. Primarily, Calvin reveals a deep conviction to a vibrant dualism-–or in more specific language, the necessity of both the divine and the earthly to be present in reality–-in at least three ways: First, in epistemology, Calvin affirms the usefulness of human reason in general revelation but demands the special revelation by the Spirit of God in the Word be the guide and source of any truth claims; second, Calvin has a high ecclessiology which is tempered by a commitment to the need for the Church to remain faithful to the scriptures; finally, he exhibits a deep commitment to the work of the Holy Spirit in making the sacraments effectual.
Part 2 on Epistemology, coming soon...
I am not sure if you all are aware of Neil Cole, but you should be. I have read two books that he has written, Organic Church and Organic Leadership. These are two absolutely incredible books. Now, just because I say they are incredible does not mean I agree with every word, but I don’t think there is anyone better than Neil Cole at asking the right questions. You might disagree, as I do, with some of his answers, but he is asking the tough questions that the American Church really needs to deal with. I am now going to link to his blog, Cole-Slaw, on our blog roll and I am also going to interact with some of the questions I have found in his two books. When I read Cole it is like an emotional roller-coaster. At one point I am cheering with all of my heart, at other times I am in disbelief of how he managed to come up with something, and at other times I am extremely challenged by the points he raises. All in all, I am thankful for him and his ministry.
The first question we are going to deal with is this: Should the Church Pay It’s Missionaries?
Here are Cole’s 7 reasons to not pay missionaries, at least at first:
“1. The indigenous people are empowered from the start. The new churches do not start dependent upon the missionary. In fact, it can be the opposite. The new churches begin with empowerment.
2. Multiplication of missionaries is much faster. The next generation of churches does not have to wait to get the strength needed to perform at a higher standard. If building hospitals and schools is our first wave of missions there will never be a second wave.
3. The missionary starts with complete faith in God. Missions are an exercise in humility and faith in God’s power, not an exercise in your own abilities. That also passes on much quicker to the next generation.
4. God gets all the glory. The missionary is seen as a normal human who needs assistance, but who also has a powerful God who grants him or her what they need. God’s provision is not just part of the story…it is the story!
5. The missionary is not better then the indigenous people. When we have nicer homes, cars, schooling for our kids and more discretionary money then those who we are trying to reach then there are a lot of negative side-effects. This dis-empowers the indigenous church. It also raises the missionary to a level above those they are trying to reach. Jesus carries this thought further when he tells the missionary to stay in their house and eat and drink what they eat and drink. The missionary is to live at the same standard as the people he or she is trying to reach.
6. It keeps the missionary’s motivations truer. The missionary’s motives are not in question. This is definitely not a career move. When someone goes out without pay and does the job just for Jesus it is pure. There is a sense of confidence that one can have in someone who has proven their heart on the fields in this way.
7. It keeps the indigenous Christian’s motives truer. The new Christian’s motives are also kept more pure because it doesn’t offer some false hope of a raise in their standard of living by becoming a Christian. Coming in strength may give the new Christians a poor incentive to be saved and serve as a missionary. There may be an unspoken promise that “you too could step up to a better standard of living if you become a Christian worker!””
What Do You Think?
Wal-Mart is quite possibly my favorite all-time store, and it was the setting for two of my most memorable middle school stories.
The first story began with me scurrying into the Wal-Mart electronics section to play video games on an after-school visit to the shopping super center. This was a usual occurrence in my family as I would spend 20-30 minutes chilling there until my mom would finish her shopping and come get me. However, this day would be anything but usual…
Something happened to me that I had never experienced before nor experienced since. That afternoon, standing in the middle of Wal-Mart, with no forewarning whatsoever, I lost complete control of my bladder. Yes! I, a 14 year old boy, peed in my pants (and we’re not talking just a little bit…).
I was utterly ashamed at my inadequate ability to control myself and attempted to hide in the corner of the electronics section. I shuddered at the thought of my mom or others seeing me, but I knew I had no other choice but to call out to her for help. Luckily, my mom came to my rescue and led me out of the store as I walked tightly behind her.
I thought this was the worst possible shame I could ever experience, but soon I would find out that this was not the case.
The second story happened only a few short months later back in the very same Wal-Mart. This time I found myself standing in front of my second favorite section in the store – the baseball card aisle. I grew up absolutely loving collecting baseball cards, and I can still readily remember the joys of receiving packs of cards for my birthdays.
However, these satisfactions were not enough for me… read more…
These 10 reasons come to you from the Internet Monk, Michael Spencer.
1. First, cards on the table: I am, for the most part, a supporter of Driscoll. I’m not in agreement with him on gender issues, and I’ll criticize him without mumbling on a collection of boneheaded maneuvers. But the guy’s vulnerability, passion for the Gospel, missionary’s heart, vision for church planting and insight into contemporary ministry far outweigh his flaws. Give him a few years and some room to be a goober.
2. The 75% of the problem you people have with Driscoll is that he’s bone-headed enough to hang some of his laundry out on the clothesline where we can see it. Trust me: all your preacher-heroes are flawed in ways that would disappoint you. Driscoll’s flaws simply have to do with his public persona. The other 25% really are flaws that, while not disqualifying, do need to be repaired, and I am confident they will be.
3. Much of the Driscoll hysteria is pure hype. Donald Miller called him the cussing preacher and most of you think Donald Miller is an emerging church apostate. Can you locate a quote of Driscoll “cussing” in a sermon? (We’ll talk about his topical and vocabulary choices in a moment.) I heard him say “Who the hell do you think you are?” once. If you have the impression that Driscoll’s language is the swearing equivalent of Good Will Hunting, you’re misinformed.
4. Here’s the deal: when he’s on the topic of sex, he talks like he’s on late night television. IOWs, he discusses sex very much unlike any preacher you know, and more like a typical guy in Seattle. He needs to change this. The problem is that Driscoll’s success has given him an audience of people who have no place whatsoever to process a joke about masturbation, etc. or to see Driscoll as embarrassing, but not dangerous.
5. My good friend- and I mean that folks- Frank Turk and I are going to have a mini-debate on here sometime regarding whether and how Driscoll should apologize for the extent of his poor example and distraction to the Gospel. I believe Driscoll’s willingness- imperfect as it may be- to be mentored by men like John Piper is as good an example as his occasionally crude words are a bad example.
6. Most of Driscoll’s problems relate to a sermon series that I believe was an unmitigated disaster. I’m willing to give the guy that one. I expect him to learn a few things.
7. If your pastor or youth minister is behaving poorly, it’s an issue in your church and in his context. Don’t think a motion at the SBC is going to make your little Driscoll fanboy sit up and fly right. That’s your bad choice of a person to work at your church. I’d advise you to get him a mentor and some feedback, and see if he grows.
8. Definitions of “holiness” in evangelicalism can get pretty prissy. The Bible has a lot of characters who are a lot more like Driscoll than they are like some prissy, fussy, fainting, prude of a morality cop. Men respect Driscoll for his imperfect holiness. People who are offended at his imperfect holiness may be in a zone that the rest of us should avoid anyway. Sometimes what offends you is offensive, and sometimes it’s an indication you ought to be doing something more constructive with your time.
9. Banning Driscoll at Lifeway will do exactly nothing…..except maybe make him more interesting. The man has millions of mp3 and video downloads a month. Lifeway books aren’t actually where those who like his preaching plug into him. This is the way the world works now. Denominational approval is not required. Piper GIVES AWAY his books for Pete’s sake. If the SBC votes that Driscoll is bad, a few people feel better and Driscoll’s stuff sells 5% more than last month.
10. Listen carefully: preacher boys liking Driscoll has to do with Driscoll getting about 25 things right most of the critics have been complaining about for years. If he grows as a person in the next 5 years in the directions most of us think he will, I don’t think you are going to want to have dumped him in the trash for being young and arrogant on occasion.
Today, Michael Jackson died at the age of 50. Jackson is considered one of the most influential and talented musicians of all time. Many people are devasted that the world has lost this pop icon, indeed, he was the “king of pop.” When I read the headline on CNN, I was gripped with grief for his soul. Unless, God saved him just prior to his death, Michael Jackson died unsaved and entered eternity with the wrath of God on him (John 3:36). This “king of pop” will meet the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, in righteous condemnation not favor.His death is sobering because it reminds me that no one is untouchable; it is appointed every man a time to die and then judgment.
This month we have been focusing on the gospel, and I hope we do forever! We will (Rev. 4-5)! Why does the gospel matter? The gospel matters because it is the power of God to save for all who believe (Rom. 1:16). If Michael Jackson did not repent and trust Jesus Christ, then he is suffering the wrath of God for all eternity in hell. How can I even type this paragraph without crying and offering endless praise to the God of my salvation! We are unworthy sinners, but Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). This is a trustworthy saying. So let us tell people of God’s grace and saving love in Jesus Christ, which is applied through the Holy Spirit. May we enjoy Jesus Christ because He died for sinners and rose again for our justification (Rom. 3:21-4:25). Jesus is not the king of pop; He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords! He is our gospel!
No one ever told me that when Jesus saved me, my life would look so different.
I expected to be working at a design studio, making some pretty decent money, and maybe being married by now. I certainly never expected to be a Christian, nor to be working at a Christ-driven ministry.
Yet, here I am.
I’m not going to go too far into my testimony in this post, because, frankly, I’m not sure I should really be telling parts of it (I’m really wrestling with this at the moment). What I want to do is simply tell you that the Gospel matters.
The real Gospel—Christ’s exemplary life, substitutionary death to atone for my sins and the sins of His people, glorious resurrection and magnificent exaltation—really matters.
I’m probably preaching to the choir here… and that’s cool. We all need to be reminded of this. We cannot be reminded of the power of the Gospel too often.
I’m a guy who five years ago was cracking jokes about Jesus and mocking Christians at every opportunity. In terms of character, I had little. I was barely of datable quality, let alone marriable.
There was absolutely nothing in my life that made me worth saving.
Yet, here I am. By His choice, by His grace, He has saved me.
Is this story going to end with a “they all lived happily ever after”? No.
While some things certainly have a fairytale-esque quality about them (Emily and I both became Christians within seconds of each other and were married within nine months, and now we have a wonderful two-year-old little girl), it’s been a hard road. Unlearning a lot of bad habits, financially and relationally. Experiencing conviction for our sins, when we used to be so comfortable doing whatever we wanted. Narrowly avoiding falling into apostasy at key points in my faith because of the popularity of certain men who are at best errant brothers and at worst false teachers. Experiencing suffering in a way that I never have before, with the miscarriage of our second child earlier this year. Feeling the weight of my immaturity and my quickness to become angry.
But I wouldn’t trade my life now for what it “could have been” for anything. I’ve seen the “could have been” and it’s not that great.
The Gospel matters. Don’t ever lose sight of that. Do not be ashamed of it.
Rejoice, because the Gospel matters.
