Sterling Opens Scripture

I keep beating this horse, but it keeps coming back to life. I’m going to keep it short and sweet this time. This is aimed at Christians who cannot decide whether you want to be a materialist or theist.

Delusion #1: You are too dumb or too uneducated to have a scientific opinion. Incorrect. It is the substance of the arguments that matter, not the experience of the person presenting them. This is a cheap shot to disqualify an person without actually confronting her argument. If you have made this argument, you cheated, but only against yourself.

Delusion #2: Evolution is not a belief system. Actually, it is. In fact, it is considerably more theological in nature than scientific. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, but every time a falsification is made a new tweak to the theory is made to account for it. Compare what is called “evolution” by textbooks today to what Darwin wrote over a century ago. Evolution is merely a popular form of experimental theology that will adapt as much as necessary to fit the facts. By the way, I have no argument with theology being paired up with science and see that as a perfectly legitimate and even unavoidable practice. I just want you to be honest about what evolution actually is.

Delusion #3: Evolution and Christian Theism are compatible positions. Not at all. There are people who try to hold to two diametrically opposed belief systems simultaneously. This is sometimes called post-modernism or relativism. When you compartmentalize your belief systems so that in one context (friends/family/church) you believe in one thing and in another context (work/school) you believe in something else, you are living a lie. Post-modernism is ridiculous and irrational because it considers this kind mental disconnect normal. It allows you to say contradictory things that still make you feel good.

Nobody can actually live her life this way, though. Rationality is the actual normal expectation everyone has and the default position to which everyone returns. If this incongruity describes you, then you will eventually try to harmonize these two contexts. Then, you will become confused. Finally, you will cause confusion for others because contradictory positions don’t harmonize (harmony is rational, belief in a contradiction is madness). Please, prayerfully, stop trying to be a walking contradiction and pick a context and a belief system. Be rational.

Christian theism and the standard model of scientific evolution are not compatible. There is no rational harmony to be had. Pick one and move on.

Cheers.

Holy moly. That trip to Pittsburgh a few weeks ago threw me off way more than I anticipated. I guess that trip combined with a bunch of projects and some changes being made to the small group I made got me distracted. Okay, let’s try to get back on track.

The Stash is only a few items, but that just leaves me more space to blab about each, right?

Starting with some nifty science, it has been discovered that corollation exists between solar flares and small variations in the speed at which radioactive isotopes decay. There’s even evidence for a similar correlation with the period of rotation of the sun’s core. It was thought that these decay rates were pretty much static. Not so much, apparently. These scientists still don’t know the exact reason for this linkage whether it’s neutrinos or some other unknown factor, but it’s a pretty interesting discovery.

In science meets politics we have an example of a big shot movie director, James Cameron, who thinks the climate change “deniers” are crackpots, easily discredited getting scared of actually trying to make good on his claim. He planned a televised debate against one of the producers of Not Evil, Just Wrong, a movie about how climate and environmental junk science is being used to promote bad policies that can result in real harm to real people, particularly in the third world. He then proceeded to back out and cancel the event.

I recently said something similar to Tim Challies here on why I still prefer print books over e-books. I was recently offered the chance to review a tech book, but turned it down because they were going to give me an e-book.

And finally, a laugh. (HT: Lance)

For the past 15 years or so, I have been in or helped to lead a small group Bible study of some sort. In that time, I have formed some fairly definite opinions on what’s good and bad regarding such things. This summer, I have been attending a Sunday School (er, Grace Bible Hour) class on small group leadership. The goal of this class is for the leadership to explore and explain some of what they are thinking of doing with small groups. As such, small group Bible study ministry has been in my thoughts.

Don’t Force It

I would say the largest obstacle to success in the Bible Studies I have attended is the attempt by church leadership or even leaders in the group to force some sort of stricture on the group. Here are some examples:

1. The group must split every year or two to be healthy.
2. The group must adhere to curriculum X.
3. The group must, each meeting, spend X time on study, Y time on fellowship, Z time on prayer.

These kinds of regulations could only have been thought up by some life-sucking bureaucrat. They are total bunk. Here’s why: these kinds of rules assume that the groups are made of robots or plants that progress at a steady, well-understood rate. They assume that people can be stuck in a box and expected to stay there. However, people are not simple, ever. People do not like to be boxed in. These rules are demeaning and stupid and onerous and are hindrance.

Leaders Lead

A healthy group has healthy leaders. If they are healthy leaders, the strictures are just going to get in the way of them doing their job. Let the leader establish how the group works. Let him work with his members and work out the dynamics. Let him react to what things are working and not working on the ground.

If a group does not have healthy leaders, then it is time for someone to help out the group and interfere with it, but not through regulation. Help should be personal and charitable. How this interference happens is also going to be a matter of how the small group fits within the church government. In a typical Baptist church, that probably means the leadership cannot do much but try and help the poor leader as much as possible or try to convince them to take on another person to lead with them or for them.

Christ First

Finally and vitally, The most important thing a small group Bible study can do is keep their eyes on Christ. He cannot just be first in word. You cannot say he is first and then actively pursue some small group growth ministry as your model. The small groups must focus on prayer, on exploring and understanding the Word, on application of the Word, on worship, on evangelism, on encouraging and lifting up our brothers and sisters.

Once Christ is your focus, the practical business of building a group, adding new members, establishing new groups, etc. can be brought in and follows naturally. It should not be an afterthought and cannot be ignored. Yet, I think the danger with any program of small group ministry is a temptation to focus on practical matters rather than Christ. Pragmatic ministry is a great danger and I think one we should work against that danger by seeking Christ first.

Cheers.

Without further ado…

Frank Turk reminds Christians that, “You don’t need a perfect confession to save you, but you do need a faith which is perfecting you, not leading you into more error.”

So true.

Moving toward politics, religious freedom is now becoming a thing of the past. If you hold to Biblical Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality and other sexual perversions, you might not be able to get a degree from a secular university anymore. This has now been confirmed in court. Our society is progressing on a path that leads to greater exultation of destructive, God-hating, sinful behaviors. I think this gives me a perfect segway into…

Some folks over at the Gospel Coalition have some interesting comments on the current Reformed movement among evangelicals—a call to a high view of Biblical theology and scripture and setting ourselves as those who stand on the truth of the Bible is needed. Compromise with our corrupt culture is becoming less attractive every day.

My friend, Jay Risner, has some sobering thoughts on modern American tyranny and the speed at which we’re embracing shackles with a smiley sticker on them. A former ambassador, Alan Keyes, concurs and discusses how real racism happens when ideology is paired to race. There’s this great quote in there from him:

“What did it mean to be a slave?” Keyes asked. “It meant that you actually had guaranteed shelter, guaranteed clothing. Your master guaranteed your food, your clothing, your shelter and a job. [sic] “Sounds interesting, doesn’t it?” he said. “That’s exactly what the Obama faction and the leftists and the socialists and the so-called ‘liberals’ want to pretend is what all Americans should aspire to.”

Speaking of tyranny, I’m thinking of moving to Misery… er, I mean, Missouri. I’m jealous. I’m frustrated that our own Kansas legislators have not been able to get a similar measure through.

Jay Leno had some great words regarding Obama’s recent 49th birthday (HT: Newsbusters):

And finally, this is a good analogy for life sometimes:

Cheers.

Last week I mentioned a story about how deconversions are glorified by many secularists. As I was making coffee today I was thinking about blogging about my 2 Peter study and was reminded of one of the most popular recent posts of my old blog. That post was part of a series of Christian myths I looked at and one of them was the myth of “I used to be a Christian”.

I’ve sometimes wondered why that particular post was more popular than others (“more” being purely relative, it was not popular compared to any “real” blog). I suppose it may have been linked on some forum somewhere or whatever, but still. Why reply or post it even? I’m nobody. I had no real following and it was nothing but ranty blog. Thinking about it now, I realize there is at least one reason someone may have taken it seriously: deconversion is a sacrament.

I’m sure the atheists out there get annoyed at us Christians projecting our religious practices upon others. Still, though, whether you call them sacraments or something else, there are certain activities that are sacred to every group. You attack that practice and expect to face the group’s wrath in return.

I think this is the case for agnostics and atheists and their deconversion. It holds the same sacred place in their hearts as a conversion experience does for certain Christian sects and cults. As long as you can point back to when you became wise, you know your experience is authentic. Attack that and you are attacking a sacred cow. Prepare for righteous indignation.

Interestingly, I don’t see the conversion experience of much important in my Bible. It’s not unimportant, as we do see Saul’s confrontation that leads to conversion and we see conversions reported in the New Testament, but they aren’t especially glorified after the fact. Living a life that glorifies God and seeks out knowledge of Christ and him crucified seems to be the important facts after conversion. Conversion is just part of the process. Of course, now I’ve just stepped on the practice of deconversion and conversion tales… oh well. No one has commented on my new blog yet, so maybe that’s enough to get a comment. Eh? Probably not.

Cheers.

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. — 2 Peter 1:1-2

Letters from the apostles always begin with a salutation that sounds very similar to this. I suppose if letter writing were the ordeal it would have been then, letters today would probably be long and well-introduced like this as well. Yet, as common as the salutation is, it is still full of valuable content. Let’s take a look at a few of these.

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours: This is a truly fascinating remark to me. Peter starts by mentioning his position as apostle and using the term “servant,” literally a Roman slave. He makes the claim of servant-leadership, like the service Christ rendered in washing his disciples feet before his last meal before the cross. (John 13:4)

He continues by humbling himself further by noting that his faith, the faith of one who knew Christ, is of equal standing to those to whom he is writing. Peter was a special member of the Twelve, but his faith is the same as our faith. He was just a sinner saved by faith in the sacrifice of the Creator-Man, Jesus Christ. As Jesus told Thomas, who wanted some proof of Jesus’ identity after the resurrection, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.” (John 20:29) Christ was referring to the faith of the very men and women Peter was writing. Peter reaffirms it in this greeting.

By the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: This faith we have in common with Peter is in “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” This is somewhat contentious among certain anti-Christian sects who try to say that God and Jesus are separate individuals and yet Peter continues to repeat the theme throughout this letter. (2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18) Jesus is God and Savior. (Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 9:6; 1 Corinthians 15:47)

May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. Grace is that which will allow Christ’s followers, in that faith of equal standing with Peter, into the presence of God. Grace is only needed where there is sin and boy is there ever sin. It is greatly confusing in this post-modern age how many try to say that man is not inherently sinful when this is really the easiest doctrine to see played out every day in humanity. It is the greatest delusion of our age that people think they are not sinners.

Grace is an unmerited gift. Grace comes in two forms. The first form is a general form that is universally received from God. God is restrained from judging the great sin of the nations and provides means by which sin is restrained. It’s not beneficial or convenient for sinners to sin constantly. This is a form of general grace.

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath [sinners] prepared for destruction. — Romans 9:22

The second form of grace is a specific kind received only by believers. This is the kind of grace Peter is referring to here. This grace is given to those who rely upon the work of Jesus Christ on the cross to become a ransom for the sins of that believer. (Matthew 20:28; Ephesians 1:7; Acts 10:43) This grace flows from the Christian to others, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” goes the Lord’s prayer. (Matthew 6:12)

Peter’s salutation tells us that we have peace and grace through Christ. He tells us about the deity of Christ. He also teaches us to seek humility and follow the servant-leadership model of Christ. So much in such a small, seemingly irrelevant, bit of text. Amen.

Cheers.

This week is kind of sparse. I’m not sure whether it was because I was so busy in the mornings and evenings this week or that nothing sparked my interest, but here’s my stash this week.

Sometimes I wonder what country I live in. When customs and border protection are more important than the life of a child, the world is broken. (HT: Len)

The New York Times reports a very interesting story related to a court ruling that limits the infamous (among geeks) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) from being used to protect things that have nothing to do with copyright. This is fairly important because companies, such as Apple, have tried to use such provisions not to protect their intellectual property, but to protect revenue streams that aren’t related to copyright. (HT: Rob & Nolan)

Check out this genetic marvel. In Britain, a dark-skinned man and woman gave birth to a blond and blue-eyed daughter. Those pictured are her actual birth parents and she’s not an albino. It’s a very interesting case that might help explain why some people are fair skinned and blue eyed while the dominant genes are neither.

Phil Johnson has a great Primer on Antinomianism. If you are aware of the Lordship Salvation debate sparked by John MacArthur and his opponents a few years ago, this is an important doctrine to be aware of. Basically, antinomianism denies that the law has any use to a believer once he believes. Believers in Lordship Salvation affirm what Luther said in his 95 Theses, that the law continues to be a guide to believers after salvation, that adherence to the law is still significant even while under grace.

I often take my collection of Bibles for granted. David, over at The Thirsty Theologian shares part of Tyndale’s biography and how he died to bring us the text of scripture in English against the wishes of his king and the Catholic Church. He paid the ultimate price for his desire to get the Bible translated into vernacular.

This is an “awesome” product. It’s a desk you can attach to your steering wheel. (Not while driving, of course.) I highly recommend checking out the customer photos. (HT: Len)

Rakudo Star is an early adopters edition of Perl 6. I’m trying to decide on whether I want to come up with a hobby project to give it try on. It would be fun.

That’s it for this week. Next week, I will be traveling, but I still plan to post. I make no promises, though.

Cheers.

DJP commented yesterday on the deconversion of Anne Rice, of Interview with a Vampire fame.

Before getting to the point, an aside. I note that she deconverted from Roman Catholicism. I want it clear that the Vatican does not preach the same gospel one finds in the Bible or even the early church and the fathers. The Reformation happened for significant reasons that the Vatican has not yet corrected.</aside>

However, I find it interesting that her deconversion is more newsworthy than her conversion. Why? Why does it matter? I believe it is considered newsworthy because there are more people interested in maligning any form of Christian religion. The nuance of doctrine within “Christendom” is irrelevant to an outsider. As far as they’re concerned, the points I make in the paragraph about Rome are meaningless. A person is still all under the umbrella of “Christian,” whether that be Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox, some variant of evangelical, fundamental, reformed, whatever. They are all in the same boat as far as your typical unbeliever is concerned.

In fact, that is kind of a vital part of the story. This confuses the real issues that authentic Christians are trying to tell and allows a person to conveniently lump all the nuts in one bag. “I don’t have to listen to X because I’ve talked with Y before and he was weird before and then deconverted later. Your crazy religion must be false because his was.” Deconversion is glorified by the unbelievers as showing authenticity for their own unbelief. “See! That person was a true believer and deconverted, so it must all be a lie.”

This is part of the reason why I think the doctrine of perseverance is so important. If a person is saved, he remains saved. (John 10:27-28) If he deconverts, it only demonstrates that his salvation was inauthentic to begin with. (Hebrews 3:12) Some have said this leads to some sort of antinomianism (the belief that law doesn’t apply to believers) whereby I can stay saved despite whatever it is I do, but that’s not right. In fact, it is the opposite. You demonstrate the authenticity of your conversion by following the Lord Jesus and obeying the commandments.

This is also why doctrine is important. It’s not enough to be under the “Christian” umbrella as perceived by an unbeliever. You have to know and believe in the correct God. A person who does not persevere, never put his faith into that God. he believed in something or someone else. This happens quite often. (Matthew 7:13-14)

So, despite the glorification of these acts, I will repeat myself as saying that there is no deconversion, only a person changing one form of unbelief for another.

Cheers.

I was reading an exchange between a Christian and an atheist today and the discussion became a little ugly. I’m not going to link to the discussion because the discussion itself is beside the point and included PG-13 language, which I don’t care for.

In this discussion, the Christian essentially started out by calling the atheist a fool and the atheist called him an idiot back. This is often what apologetic discussions turn into, unfortunately. There’s a reason for this.

At one point, the Christian threw out a reference to Matthew 7:6, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” The atheist then responded (demonstrating the warning in the verse) with Matthew 5:22, “and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”

I have a problem with the way both statements are used. Regarding the Christian using the passage in 7:6, if you have to say it, you’ve already made a mistake. It is my opinion that some things just cannot be said. This is one of them. If you are dealing with swine, move on. If they press you for an answer, you can simply say, “You are not going to change your mind, you have cursed my God, so I’m moving on to someone else whose mind is still open. When you are ready to open your mind and to seek God rather than scorn the idea of his existence, talk to me again.”

Regarding, Matthew 5:22, the context of the passage regards anger. If the writer was calling the atheist a fool because he believes something foolish, atheism is by God’s definition, foolish, then there’s no problem naming him as such. Unrighteous anger is the sin, not name calling.

In any case, just quitting the conversation might have been better than throwing out a reference that really speaks to the Christian, not the atheist. The atheist is going to call this retreat a success just as he’ll call the name calling a success just as he’ll call anything he does in the debate a success. It is in the nature of someone who is committed to his world view (and, of course, that can cut both ways as well).

Cheers.

Before diving into the passages themselves, it’s always a good idea to reflect upon the book overall. Who wrote it? Why? What’s it generally about?

The author of the book is pretty clear, it’s stated as the first two words in 2 Peter 1:1, “Simeon Peter.” Of course, that hasn’t prevented the critics of the past 150 years from trying to look for another author. Some scholars even say the book was forged. (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 2 Peter & Jude, p. 1) Yet, the book’s content really helps negate any such claim of forgery. The book itself denounces the false teaching and deception such a forger would be engaged in. (Ibid. p. 12) In any case, while there are scholars who doubt that Peter was the author, I don’t know of any compelling evidence for those doubts and accept it has Peter’s.

The book itself is probably written toward the end of Peter’s life. While he does not say so, it is possible that Peter was in prison and waiting for a death sentence to be carried out, based upon his comment in 2 Peter 1:14, “since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon.” This would place the place of the writing in Rome around AD 67 or 68. (Ibid., p. 14) According to verse 2 Peter 3:1, this is his second letter and likely a follow up to 1 Peter, which is addressed to the “elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” It is clearly a letter to believers based upon comments in 2 Peter 1:1, 12-15, 3:1, 18.

The book itself is directed almost exclusively at the defense of the gospel against false teachers. The entire book is directed towards standing strong in the truth and standing against false teachings and false teachers. The MacArthur outlines it like this (Ibid. p. 15)

1. Avoiding False Teaching by Understanding Salvation (2 Peter 1:3-11)
2. Avoiding False Teaching by Understanding the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:12-21)
3. Avoiding False Teaching by Understanding False Teachers (2 Peter 2:1-22)
4. Avoiding False Teaching by Understanding the Future (2 Peter 3:1-18)

I think that’s a pretty good outline. In these last days, I think this is a pretty important theme since there are more varieties of false teaching than there are believers.

Next week, I plan to dig in to the salutation itself. That may not sound interesting, but it’s really surprising how much there is in those first two verses.

Cheers.