tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-363620512024-03-06T23:41:03.446-08:00Gig emRandom reflections on theology, politics, sports and TEC (The Episcopal Church).
So what does Gig-em mean? "At a yell practice before the 1930 TCU game, A&M board of regent Pinky Downs '06 shouted, 'What are we going to do to those Horned Frogs?' His muse did not fail him as he improvised, borrowing a term from frog hunting. "Gig 'em, Aggies!" he said as he made a fist with his thumb extended straight up. And with that the first hand sign in the Southwest Conference came into being.'"Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.comBlogger191125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-87585839178962992602012-07-19T10:41:00.001-07:002012-07-19T10:41:02.131-07:00Evangelical Downgrade<br />
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<a href="http://www.ees1862.org/">The Evangelical Education Society</a> - a once respectable group in TEC says this in its latest newsletter. </div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;">"As the term 'evangelical' evolved to connote first 'Low Church' and later the</span><b style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"> fundamentalism of biblical <span class="J-JK9eJ-PJVNOc" style="background-color: yellow; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">inerrancy</span></b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;">, (my emphasis) the Board maintained advocacy of Anglican Evangelicalism of the English Reformation through publication of the </span><i style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">Evangelical Outlook</i><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;"> and the administration of a merit scholarship program.</span><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
By the late 20th century, <b>however, this message was ineffective</b>. (my emphasis) The <span class="J-JK9eJ-PJVNOc" style="background-color: yellow; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">EES</span> Board seized the opportunity (to) adapt by launching the Evangelism For the 21st Century grants program in 1995. The move was an abandonment of partisanship and advocacy and a commitment to follow the Spirit in innovative Gospel proclamation...."</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
So, apparently the message of the gospel (what else could they mean) was ineffective and they gave it up to follow the "Spirit in innovative Gospel proclamation..." <span style="background-color: white;">i.e. another gospel which Paul has some harsh words about in Gal 1.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<span style="background-color: white;">ps David Booth Beers is a Board Member</span></div>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-89818634963444859702012-07-14T12:57:00.002-07:002012-07-14T12:57:20.534-07:00What Ails the Episcopal ChurchRead this article from the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303919504577520950409252574.html">Wall Street Journal.</a>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-57455596252482783702012-07-14T12:36:00.001-07:002012-07-14T12:36:42.715-07:00Does God Speak Today Apart From the BibleThis is a very troubling assertion. <a href="http://www.the-highway.com/God_Speak.html">R. Fowler White</a> has written very clearly on this subject. To summarize his writing:<br />
<a href="http://www.the-highway.com/God_Speak.html"><br /></a><br />
"The living and true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is supreme head of a living church, is not mute. He speaks - and He speaks clearly - by His Spirit and through His written word, the Bible. Therefore, as the author of Hebrews aptly puts it, we must see to it that we do not disregard 'him who is speaking' (Heb 12.25).Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-18819707681527853352012-06-11T11:19:00.000-07:002012-06-11T12:47:21.819-07:00The Reformation is Not Over<br />
For Roman Catholics, Scripture and Tradition are two distinct but equal modes of revealed authority which the magisterium of the Roman Church has sole responsibility to transmit and interpret.<br />
<br />
For the early Protestant reformers, the holy Scripture provides final normative authority for Christian doctrine and practice, standing as judge above all institutions and ecclesial traditions.<br />
<br />
For Roman Catholics, sinners are justified because of inherent righteousness.<br />
<br />
For the mainstream Protestant reformers, sinners are accepted on the basis of the righteousness of another—namely, the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to them.<br />
<br />
For Roman Catholics, sinners are both justified by unmerited grace at baptism and (subsequently) justified by those infused graces merited by cooperating with divine grace.<br />
<br />
For the magisterial reformers, sinners are justified before God by grace alone.<br />
<br />
For Roman Catholics, sinners are justified by faith (in baptism), but not by faith alone.<br />
<br />
For the sixteenth-century Protestant reformers, sinners are justified by faith alone.<br />
<br />
For Roman Catholics, justification is a process of renewal that affords no solid basis for Christian assurance in this life.<br />
<br />
For reformers such as Luther and Calvin, justification is God’s decisive verdict of forgiveness and righteousness that assures Christian believers of the acceptance and love of their heavenly Father.Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-24043481592469524172012-04-11T11:38:00.000-07:002012-04-11T11:38:11.597-07:00Will Christianity SurviveAnother great quote from G. Gresham Machen from the <a href="http://opc.org/cfh/guardian/Volume_2/1936-05-18.pdf">Presbyterian Guardian</a> in 1936. <br />
<br />
"Some weeks ago I was asked by the religious editor of the Boston Evening Transcript to contribute to a symposium on the question whether Christianity is facing extinction in the Western world.<br />
<br />
I said that question can be answered only if we first answer the more fundamental question whether the preservation of Christianity depends upon man or upon God.<br />
<br />
If its preservation depends upon man or upon any natural resources, the chances are overwhelmingly againist its being preserved."Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-79077947013229241542012-04-11T11:11:00.004-07:002012-04-11T11:11:59.012-07:00The 'Assumed' Gospel<br />
<div align="center" style="text-align: center;">
<i>We must pay more careful
attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.
Hebrews 2:1</i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">You may have heard the story of the Mennonite
Brethren movement. One particular analysis goes like this<b>: the first
generation believed and proclaimed the gospel and thought that there were
certain social entailments</b>. <b>The next generation assumed the gospel and
advocated the entailments. The third generation denied the gospel and all that
were left were the entailmentsl</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i>Please read more <a href="http://beginningwithmoses.org/oldsite/bigger/assumedevangelicalism.htm">here</a></i></div>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-41206625005672959232012-04-07T14:08:00.000-07:002012-04-07T14:08:00.521-07:00A Gem From J. Gresham Machen<a href="https://www.google.com/reader/view/#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Foldlife.org%2Ffeed%2F">From J. Gresham Machen </a>on the eve of his deposition from the ministry of the Presbyterian Church.
"The whole program of the General Assembly is carefully planned in such a way as to conceal the real issues and give a false impression of faithfulness to the Word of God. I do not mean that the deceit is necessarily intentional. The men conducting the ecclesiastical machine are no doubt in many instances <i>living in a region of thought and feeling so utterly remote from the great verities of the Christian Faith that they have no notion how completely they are diverting attentio</i>n from those verities in their conduct of the Assembly. But the fact remains that the whole program, from whatever motives, is so constructed as to conceal the real condition of the Church.Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-50779062526389612902012-03-06T10:34:00.002-08:002012-04-07T13:56:17.946-07:00Science supports the Cosmological Argument<a href="http://www.bethinking.org/">From Be Thinking Web</a><br /><br />One of the premises in the Cosmological Argument is: The universe began to exist. This event was mockingly called the 'big bang' by Fred Hoyle, but the name, and the concept, stuck. But, as an editorial in New Scientist says: "Many physicists have been fighting a rearguard action against it for decades, largely because of its theological overtones. If you have an instant of creation, don't you have a creator?" ('In the beginning…', New Scientist, 14 January 2012, page 3) The editorial in New Scientist concludes: "physicists and philosophers must finally answer a problem that has been nagging at them for the best part of 50 years: how do you get a universe, complete with the laws of physics, out of nothing?"<br /><br />The article in the same issue ('Death of the eternal cosmos', pages 6-7) goes on to explain how cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin's work demonstrates that "every model of the universe has a beginning". Ironically this came from a symposium to celebrate Professor Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday. The article continues: "…the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator." Professor Hawking gave a pre-recorded speech to the symposium, in which he stated: "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God."Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-72533207840904262792012-02-24T16:40:00.000-08:002012-02-24T16:41:20.536-08:00On Praise Bands1. If we, the congregation, can’t hear ourselves, it’s not worship. Christian worship is not a concert. In a concert (a particular “form of performance”), we often expect to be overwhelmed by sound, particularly in certain styles of music. In a concert, we come to expect that weird sort of sensory deprivation that happens from sensory overload, when the pounding of the bass on our chest and the wash of music over the crowd leaves us with the rush of a certain aural vertigo. And there’s nothing wrong with concerts! It’s just that Christian worship is not a concert. Christian worship is a collective, communal, congregational practice–and the gathered sound and harmony of a congregation singing as one is integral to the practice of worship. It is a way of “performing” the reality that, in Christ, we are one body. But that requires that we actually be able to hear ourselves, and hear our sisters and brothers singing alongside us. When the amped sound of the praise band overwhelms congregational voices, we can’t hear ourselves sing–so we lose that communal aspect of the congregation and are encouraged to effectively become “private,” passive worshipers.<br /><br />2. If we, the congregation, can’t sing along, it’s not worship. In other forms of musical performance, musicians and bands will want to improvise and “be creative,” offering new renditions and exhibiting their virtuosity with all sorts of different trills and pauses and improvisations on the received tune. Again, that can be a delightful aspect of a concert, but in Christian worship it just means that we, the congregation, can’t sing along. And so your virtuosity gives rise to our passivity; your creativity simply encourages our silence. And while you may be worshiping with your creativity, the same creativity actually shuts down congregational song.<br /><br />3. If you, the praise band, are the center of attention, it’s not worship. I know it’s generally not your fault that we’ve put you at the front of the church. And I know you want to model worship for us to imitate. But because we’ve encouraged you to basically import forms of performance from the concert venue into the sanctuary, we might not realize that we’ve also unwittingly encouraged a sense that you are the center of attention. And when your performance becomes a display of your virtuosity–even with the best of intentions–it’s difficult to counter the temptation to make the praise band the focus of our attention. When the praise band goes into long riffs that you might intend as “offerings to God,” we the congregation become utterly passive, and because we’ve adopted habits of relating to music from the Grammys and the concert venue, we unwittingly make you the center of attention. I wonder if there might be some intentional reflection on placement (to the side? leading from behind?) and performance that might help us counter these habits we bring with us to worship.Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-2063101020039434652012-02-15T09:48:00.000-08:002012-02-15T10:00:58.956-08:00The TrinityFor a word which never appears in the Bible, the teaching of the Trinity is one of the most important teachings of the Bible. Among my evangelical colleagues, I don't know of any, Arminian, Reformed, or Anabaptist who deny this doctrine. Understanding it and explaining it clearly is another matter. That is where we are always in need of help.<br /><br />Of course, we have a great starting point - the Creeds. In our case (Anglican) we have three creeds to help us - the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Further the first article in our confessional statement, the Articles of Religion begins with the Holy Trinity. <br /><br />The Articles say this: "There is one living and true God. His existence is everlasting, without beginning or end. He is the Creator and Preserver of all things whether seen or unseen. In the unity of this one true God there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are one in being, power and eternity."<br /><br />One God and three Persons. There is really no analogy which does justice to this statement. There is no religion which comes close to this understanding of God, and there is no way of discovering this doctrine without its being revealed to us.<br /><br />My church history teacher made the point that there is no heresy today which is not anticipated by the ancient heresies, which the Creeds have addressed. These heresies concerned the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. <br /><br />A glorious God and a glorious teaching.Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-39832382629223069272012-02-02T10:16:00.000-08:002012-02-02T10:22:11.312-08:00Total Depravity<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:.5in"><b>Total Depravity<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><br />A 19<sup>th</sup>-century American joke about the woman who, when asked what she thought of the doctrine of total depravity, replied that it was a very good doctrine if people would only live up to it.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">It doesn’t go without saying that we are sinners, under God’s condemnation and in need of his forgiveness. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The same God who commands that the good news of salvation be shouted with a loud voice from the top of a mountain <b>(Isa 40.9)</b> also commands that the bad news of his people’s sins be preached and preached out loud with a voice ‘like a trumpet’ <b>(Isa 58.1)</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><b><i>Isaiah 58:1 (ESV) </i></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"> “Cry aloud; do not hold back; lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression, to the house of Jacob their sins.</p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>The doctrine of sin needs to be <b>preached, not presupposed</b>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>“Although traditional Christianity is true, its truth saws against the grain of much in contemporary culture and therefore needs constant sharpening. Christianity’s major doctrines need regular restatement so that people may believe them, or believe them anew. Its classic awareness’s need to be evoked so that people may have them, or have them again. Recalling and confessing our sin is like <b>taking out the garbage</b>: once is not enough.” Cornelius Plantinga</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><b><i>Genesis 6:5 (ESV) </i></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"> The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><b><i>Genesis 6:11 (ESV) </i></b><br />Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><o:p> </o:p><b><i>Isaiah 1:4-6 (ESV)<br /></i></b><b><sup>4 </sup></b>Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, of spring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. <b><sup>5 </sup></b>Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. <b><sup>6 </sup></b>From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><b><i>Jeremiah 17:1 (ESV)<br /></i></b>“The sin of <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Judah</st1:country-region></st1:place> is written with a pen of iron; with a point of diamond it is engraved on the tablet of their heart, and on the horns of their altars,</p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><b><i>Psalms 51:5 (ESV) </i></b><br />Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><b><i>Mark 7:21-23 (ESV)<br /></i></b><b><sup>21 </sup></b>For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, <b><sup>22 </sup></b>coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. <b><sup>23 </sup></b>All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"> <b><i>Romans 3:10-12 (ESV)<br /></i></b><b><sup>10 </sup></b>as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; <b><sup>11 </sup></b>no one understands; no one seeks for God. <b><sup>12 </sup></b>All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”</p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><i>Doesn’t mean we are as sinful as they could possibly be or that there is no such thing as virtuous action apart from the saving work of God’s Spirit, or that fallen humanity is bereft of all conscience</i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>Calvin argued that Adam’s fall had such a devastating effect on the image of God in humanity that ‘nothing remains after the ruin except what is confused, mutilated, and disease-ridden.’</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><b>A Very Practical Doctrine</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>1. Depravity and watchfulness:</b><br />Reign of sin is broken, nevertheless we are utterly dependent upon God for both our fotgiveness and our sanctification.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> In the Lord's Prayer we</o:p> ask for forgiveness every day.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And even though we have ‘crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5.24) there remains for us the urgent, ongoing command to ‘put to death therefore what is earthly in you.” (<st1:place st="on"><st1:state st="on">Col</st1:state></st1:place> 3.5; Romans 8.13)</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><b>2. Depravity and compassion:<br /></b>We too are but dust (Psalm 103.14). We are by nature companions in a miserable, helpless condition;</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>3. Depravity and culture<br /></b>Fallen culture is capable of great works – of beauty, truth and wisdom, it does remind us that on all these works of human hands – even the most magnificent – there will be the stains and smudges of human sin.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>4. Depravity and Evangelism<br /></b>All conversion is a miracle. John 3.1-8 – plus against distortion of message – 2 Cor 4.2-6</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Depravity and doxology<br /></b>Humbling doctrine. That our salvation depends on grace, not works.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-75596401077513681422012-01-21T12:42:00.000-08:002012-01-21T12:44:57.038-08:00Brilliant Analysis from DG Hart<h2 class="entry-title" style="max-width: 650px; font-size: 18px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(17, 85, 204); font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><a class="entry-title-link" target="_blank" href="http://oldlife.org/2012/01/can-we-get-a-little-moral-clarity-here/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=can-we-get-a-little-moral-clarity-here" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204); text-decoration: none; ">Can We Get a Little Moral Clarity Here?<div class="entry-title-go-to" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 2px; padding-left: 16px; height: 17px; background-image: url(https://www.google.com/reader/ui/3904077461-entry-action-icons.png); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; opacity: 0.4; display: inline; background-position: 0% -413px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; "></div></a><span class="entry-icons-placeholder" style="display: inline-block; "></span></h2><div class="entry-author" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); text-decoration: none; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="entry-source-title-parent">from <a class="entry-source-title" target="_blank" href="https://www.google.com/reader/view/feed/http%3A%2F%2Foldlife.org%2Ffeed%2F" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204); text-decoration: none; display: inline-block; ">Old Life Theological Society</a></span> <span class="entry-author-parent">by <span class="entry-author-name">D. G. Hart</span></span></div><div class="entry-debug" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></div><div class="entry-annotations" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></div><div class="entry-body" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; max-width: 650px; padding-top: 0.5em; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><div class="item-body" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><p>In the light of Newt Gingrich’s recent surge in the polls, let’s see how the fortunes of the Religious Right are developing:</p><p>A <del>weak</del> week ago Mitt Romney was leading in the polls and some even talked about his sowing up the nomination after South Carolina and Florida.</p><p>Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife did an interview this week in which details of Newt’s infidelities were in full view.</p><p>South Carolina may be the most evangelical state in the union, prompting <a href="http://christianexodus.org/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204); ">some to call for Christians to migrate</a>to the Palmetto State.</p><p>Today, pundits are calling the South Carolina Republican primary a toss-up between Gingrich and Romney, despite Romney’s obvious practice of family values and Gingrich’s marital past.</p><p>So where does this lead? First, evangelicals rally behind Tim Tebow who disregards the fourth commandment. Second, evangelical leaders tried to identify Rick Santorum, a Roman Catholic who doesn’t even number the Ten Commandments (let alone interpret them) as evangelicals do (or used to). Now, apparently some evangelicals are willing to overlook the seventh commandment in favor of a conservative Republican.</p><p>I personally don’t care how evangelicals vote. Voting is not an act of devotion and is a matter of Christian liberty. But I do grow weary of the constant refrain of faith’s importance for politics when it is so obviously untrue, when a paucity of political ideas forces believers to wrap politics in Christian language. All of us are hypocrites. But not all of us make such a big deal of calling attention to our hypocrisy. If the Religious Right wants the rest of America to take them seriously, they need to acknowledge and explain their selectivity. I have advice — adopt 2k theology which means that you recognize the fallenness of the world and its politicians and so make the best of a bad situation. But if you’re going to insist that religion forms the only adequate basis for morality, and if you’re going to demand political candidates who have a faith that produces the kind of character needed for holding public office, then you better have a ready explanation for your vote for candidates who openly violate the Ten Commandments.</p><p>And it would also be good to explain how your identification of political acts with Christian devotion is not a violation of the First Commandment. Admittedly, Karl Barth had his problems as an interpreter of the Reformed tradition. But he certainly recognized the damnable error of investing political parties with religious significance (beyond the indefinite meanings supplied by providence).</p></div></div></div></div>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-37905766245676981402011-09-26T16:11:00.000-07:002011-09-26T16:12:24.847-07:00Right With God<p class="MsoNormal">We will be welcoming Bishops Larry Robertson and Terry Buckle (retired)<span> </span>later this month for Bishop Buckle’s episcopal visitation and also to meet the new bishop of the Anglican Diocese of the <st1:state st="on">Yukon</st1:state> (<st1:place st="on"><st1:placetype st="on">Church</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename st="on">Canada</st1:placename></st1:place>), Bishop Robertson.<span> </span> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">They will participate in a Revival on October 21-22 at All Saints and then will lead the Confirmation Service on Sunday, October 23 at the 10.45 service.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>T</o:p>he Revival Theme will be:<span> </span><b>Right With God</b>.<span> </span>J.I. Packer has called the teaching of Justification by Faith (Right With God) the central teaching of the church.<span> </span>He said it is like Atlas.<span> </span>“It bears a whole world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of God the Savior.”<span> </span>When Atlas “loses his footing, everything that rested on his shoulders collapses too.”<span> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Justification by works – that is the belief that we can in some way contribute to our being Right With God, is, according to Packer, “the natural religion of mankind, and has been since the Fall.”<span> </span>Further, to believe that we can contribute in even some small way to our salvation is to be an enemy of the gospel of grace.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">We will meet on Thursday and Friday evenings (October 20 and 21) at 5.30 for dinner, then from 7-8.30 for a teaching, testimony and hymn singing.<span> </span>It should be a great time – and I hope many of will come and bring a friend.<span> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Last year I attended a Revival held at St. Thomas Episcopal Church in Point Hope, AK.<span> </span>It was a great time, and so we are modeling our 2 gatherings after that time of teaching, testimony and hymn singing.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-71058320145670608132011-06-06T17:58:00.000-07:002011-06-06T17:59:33.311-07:00Unity, Diversity and Liberality<!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <h3><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/06/i-am-tired-of-all-the-options/" title="Permanent Link to I Am Tired of All the Options">I Am Tired of All the Options</a></h3> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.5pt;text-align:center" align="center"> <hr align="center" color="gray" noshade="noshade" size="2" width="95%"> </div> <p>Jeffrey Bingham, the chair of the theology department at Dallas Theological Seminary, has a phrase he uses when people advocate something that is not a part of the historic Christian faith: “It’s <em>something</em>, but it’s <em>not </em>Christian.” More and more lately I have been asking this question: When do we, in our zeal to remove possible stumbling blocks to the Gospel, offer a form of Christianity that is no longer Christian?</p> <p>The last few months, in keeping up with my weekly reading of “what is happening now” in theology, I have begun to experience theological nausea. My spirit is sick and it is about to hurl. I don’t know what that looks like, but it does not feel right. There are simply too many “opt outs” being offered – we are beginning to look more like a cafeteria than a church.</p> <p>In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty . . . right? Let me try to briefly state the issue that I have, today, at 5:24pm CST. I am getting the feeling that Christian apologists and theologians, in order to make our faith more palatable to the outside world, are attempting to move all difficulties of our faith into the “non-essential” category in order to create “opt outs.” This is where just about everything outside of the person and work of Christ becomes negotiable. When does the form of Christianity we offer become something different than the historic Christian faith?</p> <p>Some examples are in order here (please forgive the snarky spirit of the following):</p> <p><strong>1. Problem with the doctrine of eternal punishment? </strong>No problem. We have these two less common options: universalism or annihilationism. You can believe that all people will eventually be saved or that all the damned will cease to exist.</p> <p><strong>2. Problem with the truthfulness of Scripture?</strong> No issue at all. There is no need to believe that the Scripture is true in <em>everything </em>it says, only the “big parts” like Christ’s resurrection.</p> <p><strong>3. Problem with a donkey talking and other crazy things? </strong>Let me point you to an important word: “metaphor.” Yep, just about any portion of Scripture can be turned into a metaphor, myth, parable, symbol, or any number of things. Point being, you don’t <em>have </em>to accept it.</p> <p><strong>4. Problem with creation account in Genesis?</strong> No need to get down. We have lots of options here, including our latest, theistic evolution. The point is that whatever modern science proposes, you can accept. (See number 3 for the means of acceptance.)</p> <p><strong>5. Problem with God’s allowing for evil?</strong> Easy. We have an option that says God, in order to preserve freedom and true love, cannot know about (much less intervene) in the free-will evil choices that people make. Therefore, he is off the hook. Its called “open theism.” Have fun.<span id="more-7970"></span></p> <p><strong>6. Problem with the doctrine of election?</strong> I understand. This is a particularly nasty one. However, no need to fear. You don’t have to believe this. There is a modified form of divine election which says God’s choice is based on <em>your </em>choice. There . . . the sting is gone.</p> <p><strong>7. Problem with the exclusivity of Christ?</strong> Again, we have the answer. Nowadays, we have this idea called “inclusivism.” With this fancy option, we say that people can be covered by the blood of Christ without actually accepting the Gospel. Awesome.</p> <p>Next…</p> <p><strong>8. Speaking of the “blood” of Christ, some of you might have a problem with the idea that the Father sacrificed his son</strong> (and that he was actually happy about it). You know all that archaic stuff about sacrifices and the shedding of blood? You don’t <em>have </em>to accept that either. There are some who believe that Christ was an example rather than the subject of “divine child abuse.” God’s forgiveness is based on his love, not blood.</p> <p><strong>9. Problem with homosexuality being a sin?</strong> Don’t let that hold you back. Many of our most astute theologians have been able to rework this issue so that there is an option on the table which proposes that homosexuality was not <em>universally </em>condemned in the Scripture. Though the ranks of those who advocate this may be few, it is enough to create a loophole to get out of this one. There are even many “gay churches” that you can attend.</p> <p>Next…</p> <p><strong>10. Problem with male headship in the church and family?</strong> This is one of the easier ones. We have tons of representatives in the church (even denominations) which disagree here. You are free to reject any idea of male headship based upon “cultural context.”</p> <p>Okay. I am done with the examples…</p> <p>Here is the problem I have. While I hold to pretty traditional beliefs in these areas, many (not all) of these listed I agree with. In other words, I do believe there are <em>some </em>legitimate alternatives, most notably on the issue of election. While I am a Calvinist, being very committed to unconditional divine election, I understand there are alternative options here that are viable. In short, I don’t believe that a rejection of unconditional election amounts to a rejection of Christianity.</p> <p>However, when does our removal of intellectual and emotional stumbling blocks create an aberration of Christianity that is Christian only in name? When does our theology get manipulated enough to where it is no longer Christian theology? When do we offer so many choices on the Christian smörgåsbord that the cafeteria’s name needs to change? When does our theology cross the line to where it is “something, but not Christian”?</p> <p>While writing this, I was talking to a friend who said that she knows a person whom she is trying to evangelize, but that this person has some “issues” with the Christian faith. She wants to bring the friend to the Credo House to discuss them with me. I said in jest, “No problem. Whatever issue the person has, we have multiple alternatives! I can get out of anything.” In other words, whatever their problem is, so long as it is not about the resurrection of Christ, “we know a guy” that can take care of it, if you know what I mean.</p> <p>I am suspicious of any mindset that is compelled to produce all of these “opt-outs” in order to make Christianity more palatable. Who said that was our job? When did palatability become a test for veracity? Sometimes we believe things that are not palatable, don’t we? Is our desire to be intellectually and culturally viable causing our witness to misrepresent “the faith once for all handed over to the saints”? When do we lose the “fellowship of the saints” due to our minimalization of the Christian faith? Just because something is hard to believe, does this give us the right to scavenger hunt for other options? When have we pulled up so many anchors that we are adrift in a different sea? When is it “something, but not Christian”?</p> <p>I am tired of all the options. Can we just preach our convictions in the church and not the cafeteria?</p>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-9642779495067070752011-06-04T16:02:00.001-07:002011-06-04T16:05:12.207-07:00The gospel and obedience to the word of God<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Last Sunday, we looked at this verse:<b><i><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></i></b><i><sup><span style="color:black;">{16} </span></sup>yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.</i><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>(Gal 2.16).</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">The basis of our standing before God is not by anything we do but by faith in Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>For Christ’s death for our sins has removed the enmity between God and ourselves, and his righteousness, imputed (declared) to us, means that we are God’s children, and heirs of eternal life.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Paul goes on to say that the way we enter and maintain this relationship with God is by faith – that is faith in the person of Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">This is the gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>However, as important as these central truths are, there is more to say.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>We need, for instance to understand that with faith goes repentance.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And further, genuine faith leads to obedience - obedience to God which means obedience to his word.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Obedience to the Lord, while not the ground of our justification, is the proper response to the love of God in Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In many matters, the word of God is very clear; in others, it is not.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Where the word of God is silent, so must we be.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But, where it is clear, we must be clear.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">The Bible is very clear that sexual relations, gifts from God, are intended for a man and a woman in marriage.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The Episcopal Church has upheld this for most of its history – until the last 10 years or so.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>For a number of reasons, our denomination, contrary to biblical teaching, has now altered this teaching. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">We now learn that Bishop Lattime will ordain a non-celibate homosexual woman to the diaconate this Saturday.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>We have let him know that we believe this to be contrary to God’s revealed will further splintering an already divided denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>We urge him to follow the word of God and encourage all people, and especially ordained men and women, to live godly lives, and to repent of their sinful behavior - as we all must do.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">We read this in Titus 1.9:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He (the presbyter/bishop) must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to <b>rebuke</b> those who contradict it.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br /></p>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-25736858724118045012011-02-03T10:36:00.001-08:002011-02-03T10:36:53.756-08:00The Solas<h2 class="entry-title"><a class="entry-title-link" target="_blank" href="http://solapanel.org/article/keeping_the_solas_together/#When:23:00Z">Keeping the solas together</a></h2><div class="entry-author"><span class="entry-source-title-parent">from <a href="http://www.google.com/reader/view/feed/http%3A%2F%2Fsolapanel.org%2Frss%2F" class="entry-source-title" target="_blank">The Sola Panel</a></span> <div class="entry-likers"><div class="entry-likers-n"><span class="number-of-likers more-likers-link link">1 person liked this</span></div></div></div><div> <div><img src="http://solapanel.org/images/profiles/uploads/avatar_9.jpg" alt="Lionel Windsor" height="57" width="57" /></div> </div> <p>By Lionel Windsor</p> <p>One of the aims of the Sola Panel is to go back to basics, to remind ourselves of the importance of the ‘solas’ (i.e. scripture alone, faith alone, Christ alone, grace alone, glory to God alone). This post will look at one way in which these solas all fit together.</p> <p>I'm currently reading through Timothy Ward's very helpful book <cite>Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God</cite> (Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham, 2009). It's a good and highly accessible exposition of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, which avoids many of the petty caricatures that are sometimes thrown about, and deals well with a number of modern objections. I highly recommend it as a book to put near the top of your reading list this year.</p> <p>Early on in the book, Ward seeks to ground our doctrine of Scripture in the even more fundamental doctrine of the ‘word of God’ (or the ‘speech of God’). Ward points out that God's speech is, and always has been, exceedingly powerful. This is seen especially when it comes to God's justification of the ungodly. In this very significant case, God's speech doesn't just inform us about God's salvation; it actually brings salvation to us:</p> <blockquote><p>God establishes, by his own declaration, a fundamental change in our standing before him, before he brings about, by the sending of the Holy Spirit, a real change to our sinful state… he spoke, making us by that declaration to be justified in our relationship with him… Thus a fundamental aspect of God's redemptive work occurs when he chooses to speak, and in so doing unilaterally brings us to share here and now in the right standing with him that Jesus Christ has. (pp. 27-28)</p></blockquote> <p>This is a pretty good exposition of some of the important connections between God's word/speech and our salvation. But it's important to remember that God's ‘speech-act’ of justification is only one part of the story of salvation.<a target="_blank" name="r1" href="http://solapanel.org/#f1"><sup>1</sup></a></p> <p>We must always remember that when the Bible talks about God justifying us, it never talks about this justification as a mere declaration that occurs all by itself. It's not the case that God simply says to us out of the blue, “I deem you to be justified”, and that act of speech <em>alone</em> brings about our salvation. Of course, God's speech is mightily powerful. But when it comes to our salvation, God's justifying speech-act is connected to other highly significant powerful actions of God.</p> <p>The first aspect of God's saving work that we must always remember when we think about justification is the atonement. God's justification of sinners is based squarely on the death of Jesus Christ for our sins—that one supreme act of love and grace whereby Jesus paid for our sins and satisfied the wrath of God. Paul, who of all the biblical authors spells out the idea of justification most fully, never talks about justification in a vacuum. Paul brings the concepts of justification and atonement together. He tells us that we “are justified by his grace as a gift, <em>through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus</em>” (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Rom+3%3A24" title="Rom 3:24">Rom 3:24</a>). The purpose of Jesus' atoning work (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Rom+3%3A25" title="Rom 3:25">Rom 3:25</a>) is to enable God to be ‘just’ and to be the “justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Rom+3%3A26" title="Rom 3:26">Rom 3:26</a>). Without the atonement, God could not remain true to his own just standards as creator and judge, and therefore could not justify us. You see the same thing in Galatians—Paul's strong defence in Galatians is that God's justification of sinners doesn't stand alone, but it is based on the fact that Jesus “gave himself for our sins” (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Gal+1%3A4" title="Gal 1:4">Gal 1:4</a>). Justification and the atonement go together; justification without atonement would be nothing and would mean nothing.</p> <p>The second thing that must not be forgotten when it comes to justification is that those who are justified are united to Christ through <em>faith</em>. This isn't to say that our own faith is itself some wonderful meritorious action that secures a reward from God. What it means is that when God justifies us he's not issuing some arbitrary declaration that makes no sense of the reality of our own personal sin. It's not the case that God one day decides to say to us, “You are righteous”, when patently we are, in fact, miserable sinners. No, God's declaration of us as ‘righteous’ is based on the fact that he, by his Holy Spirit acting through his word which brings about faith, has actually united us to his righteous Son. This means that our own sins are truly cancelled by Jesus' death, and that we truly share in the righteousness that by rights only belongs to Christ. For example, Paul speaks about being “found in him [i.e. Christ], not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Phil+3%3A9" title="Phil 3:9">Phil 3:9</a>).</p> <p>In other words, the Reformation ‘solas’ all go together. God, through the supreme authority of <em>Scripture alone</em>, addresses us, speaks the gospel to us, declares that we are justified, and so brings salvation to us sinners. But this can only be true because <em>Christ alone</em> has performed that once-for-all atoning sacrifice for sins. By <em>faith alone</em>, the sacrifice of Christ is applied to our own reality. All of this is an act of God's <em>grace alone</em>—to the <em>glory of God alone</em>. You can only go so far talking about one or the other of the solas in isolation. They really are a package deal.</p> <p><a target="_blank" name="f1" href="http://solapanel.org/#r1"><sup>1</sup></a> I'm not disagreeing with Timothy Ward here, just clarifying a possible misunderstanding. I'm pretty sure that he would agree with what I have to say here, since in the passage I've quoted, he cites <a target="_blank" href="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+5%3A8" title="Romans 5:8">Romans 5:8</a> (about Jesus' death), and goes on to discuss the “effectual calling” whereby God's word creates saving faith.</p>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-84764299367590570492011-02-03T10:13:00.000-08:002011-02-03T10:14:14.320-08:00Moore Stuff from Mark Thompson<div style="text-align: justify;">I have long wanted to write a serious piece on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Recently I was given the opportunity to do so through an invitation to contribute to a volume essays, <i>The Bible and the Academy: Critical Scholarship and the Evangelical Understanding of Scripture in the 21st Century, </i>edited by James Hoffmeier and Dennis Magary and to be published by Crossway in 2011. I do not intend to reproduce the article here but instead simply to outline its argument.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">My goal was not to present a comprehensive exposition of the doctrine (which would have required about three times the space) but to explore the strictly theological dimensions of the doctrine. While critically biblical inerrancy is a doctrine about the Christian Bible (and not first and foremost about the biblical authors), it has profound connections with the doctrine of God and his involvement in the world he has made.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here is the outline:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>1. Introduction</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>An acknowledgement of current difficulties with the doctrine and the need for a theological account.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>2. A doctrine both theologically robust and exegetically defensible</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>A response to the charge that the doctrine is itself unbiblical, a brief exploration of how the doctrine raises acutely the question of theological method, and an examination of some classic definitions (Warfield, The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, and Paul Feinberg) alongside Michael Horton's brief but decidedly theological definition.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>3. The five theological pillars of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>These are: (a) God's personal veracity; (b) God's concursive involvement in the created order; (c) God's willingness to accommodate himself for our sake; (d) God's creation and use of human speech and writing; and (e) God's gift of Scripture.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>4. A perspective on the difficulties</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>A concluding comment that reflects on the way critiques of the doctrine routinely deal in caricature, the need to take difficulties with the text seriously without imposing a predetermined solution and recognising that we may not expect all answers to be known in the present, and a plea for maintaining perspective — inerrancy is not the only or perhaps even the most important characteristic of Scripture.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here is an extract from the conclusion:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">As we acknowledged at the beginning, there is much more that could be said. However, it is evident that the theological anchorage of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is both broad and deep. Our understanding of Scripture cannot be isolated from the person and character of the God who gave it to us, just as it may not bypass the genuine freedom and conscious involvement of the human authors of each particular text. What it means for this collection of texts to be the written word of God and what it means for it to be 'genuinely human' must be determined first and foremost with reference to God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Yet what is involved is much more than a theological syllogism or a hasty and unqualified appeal to the hypostatic union of divine and human natures in Christ. Larger theological themes are integrated with Scripture's self-attestation and with a sensitivity to the textures of what we have in fact been given in Scripture.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Biblical inerrancy has more often been engaged by critics in caricature than with serious attention to the best and most serious expositions of the doctrine. Contemporary assessments of the phenomena of Scripture have too often been given priority over the express biblical affirmations or the broader theological framework sketched above. On the one hand, a preoccupation with incidental details has not often been disciplined by sustained attention to the purposes for which Scripture has been given, while on the other, too little attention has been given to the way in which the central message of Scripture is inextricably bound to matters of history and observations about the world in which we live ...</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I hope that the full article, when it is published, will answer any questions which might arise from this bare outline and quote from its conclusion. Suffice to say that my research and the process of writing the article strengthened rather than diminished my commitment to this important doctrine, though I remain opposed to using it as a Shibboleth.</div>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-73321275334342971112011-02-02T14:56:00.000-08:002011-02-02T14:57:07.058-08:00Reformation of Anglican Communion<div style="text-align: justify;"><i>If the Anglican Communion is to be reformed again it needs to be hear and heed these crucial truths:</i></div><ol><li>It is impossible to take Jesus seriously without taking the teaching of Scripture seriously. Faith in Christ entails acknowledging Christ's Lordship. Submitting to Christ as Lord means being willing to conform our thinking and our behaviour to the words he has given us. Since he endorsed the Hebrew Old Testament (Lk 24:44) and appointed those whose mission produced the New Testament (Mtt 28:18–20; Acts 1:8), we cannot avoid the reality that faith in Christ manifests itself in obedience to the teaching of Scripture (Mtt. 7:24; Jms 1:22).</li><li>The Spirit of God never leads people in ways contrary to the teaching of Scripture, which he has been instrumental in producing. Jesus' promise of the Spirit to his disciples was not that the Spirit will lead the churches on from Scripture into truth which somehow supersedes it, but that he will ensure that Jesus' words are heard until the end of the age (Jn 16:13–14). To pit the Spirit against the Scriptures is to fail to understand either.</li><li>The most urgent and important need of every human being is to be reconciled to God. We are all naturally God's enemies (Rms 5:10) with the result that we stand under the wrath of the God who loves us (Rms 1:18; Eph. 2:1–3). Our natural disposition is to insist on our own autonomy, to repeat the folly of the Garden of Eden where the goal was to determine right and wrong without reference to God and the word he had given (Gen. 3:4–6). If we are to be reconciled to God, then the cconsequences of our rebellion against him — our guilt, corruption, enslavement to sinful thinking and behaviour, and death — must all be dealt with in their entirety. A gospel which does not explain this most basic need is no gospel at all.</li><li>The gospel which the Christian church proclaims is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3–8). Christ was delivered up for our transgressions and was raised for our justification (Rms 4:25). This is the provision of the triune God whose determined love for the men and women he has made causes him to bear all the consequences of their sin and exhaust them (Eph. 2:4–7).</li><li>The embrace of this salvation is only possible by the work of the Spirit transforming human hearts, bringing new life and creating faith (Jn 3:5–6; Rms 8:9–17; 1 Cor 12:3). Without such a work we all remain lost. No human effort will bring us within the orbit of Christ's salvation, it is entirely a gift of grace to undeserving sinners (Eph. 2:8–9). We are justified by faith alone and this faith which is the instrument of our justification is produced in us by the Spirit (Rms 5:1; Gal. 5:5).</li><li>To be forgiven, and so incorporated into the family of God, transforms the entirety of our lives. The gospel of Jesus Christ determines an entirely new set of priorities which shape life in the public square, in the workplace, in places of recreation and in our homes. There is no facet of life which stands beyond the claims of Christ's lordship (Phil. 1:27; Col. 2:6–4:6; Eph. 4:1–6:9). </li><li>While each of us continues to struggle with various forms of temptation, the continuing dynamic of the Christian life is one of repentance and faith (Mk 1:15; Acts 20:21; Heb. 6:1). Our orientation to sin, in whichever form it is expressed in each of us, is not what defines us and should not be given expression in our thoughts, words or actions. Once again it is the Spirit who has been given to us who enables us in this struggle: 'the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do' (Gal. 5:17).</li><li>We are not saved to a life of individualism, self-realisation, independence or autonomy. God has always been about saving <i>a people</i> for himself (Gen 12:2–3; Ex. 19:3–6; Jn 12:32; Rev. 5:9–10). Following Christ means serving others just as he has served us. This is why the local congregation is at the centre of God's purposes. Here the life of service and love is lived out in relationship with others who have been saved by Christ and reaching out to those who are still lost. After all, it is the church — and not just individual Christians — which Christ presents to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish' (Eph. 5:27).</li><li>This is not to deny important responsibilities beyond the local congregation, responsibilities modelled at points even in the New Testament (e.g. Acts 15:1–35; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 1 Thess. 1:6–8). Over the centuries, various institutional structures have been developed in order to support, resource and assist the faithful life and witness of the gathered people of God. Yet these must never become the focus of loyalty themselves nor must the unity of the Spirit be confused with a common institutional structure. The unity the Spirit brings is neither created nor preserved by institutional regulation. It arises out of a fellowship in the gospel (Phil. 1:5) which is maintained 'in the bond of peace' (Eph. 4:3). It is a unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 4:13) which cannot be separated from a unity of mind (Phil. 2:2; 1 Pet. 3:8). Denominations need to concerned with faithfulness to the gospel of Christ above any consideration of structural cohesion.</li><li>Leadership amongst God's people is first and foremost about fidelity to the gospel and a transparent, humble submission to the teaching of Scripture. There should be a mutual accountability of those set apart to serve the churches and those who follow their lead in the churches (Mtt. 23:8). Leaders who abandon the biblical gospel in teaching or lifestyle (ie a lifestyle either lived by them or endorsed by them and contrary to the teaching of Scripture), should be held to account and if they will not repent, be removed for the sake of the people they are meant to be serving in truth and faithfulness (Acts 20:29–31; 1 Tim. 1:18–20; Jude 3).</li><li>The mission of Christ is the priority of Christ's people. Amidst the myriad of demands made upon the resources of individual Christians, churches or denominations, those being conformed to the image of God's Son share his concern to save the lost. Preeminently concerned to see lost men and women come to faith in Christ and grow to maturity in him, they will not let evangelism and discipleship be overshadowed by other worthwhile activity.</li><li>A longstanding temptation facing the churches has been a longing for acceptance, a sense of respectability, and an acknowledgement by those with power or influence that they have a legitimate place in contemporary society. Such a temptation has often led to an accommodation to elements of the contemporary secular agenda. In all of this the words of Jesus are easily forgotten: '... because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you' (Jn 15:19; 17:14). The church will always be a despised minority in a world arraigned against God. Nevertheless, despite such opposition, even the power of death will not prevail against the church that Christ is building (Mtt. 16:18). Though we ought not to seek the animosity of the world, or indeed provoke it by our own arrogance or folly, we need to remember that vindication and legitimization will only come on the day we are invited to 'enter the joy of our master' (Mtt. 25:21, 23).</li></ol>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-78449936660915083522011-01-21T17:56:00.000-08:002011-01-21T18:06:22.273-08:00When is enough EnoughMichael <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Ovey</span>, principal of Oak Hill College (Anglican Seminary) in London, responds to a question regarding error in the church:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Question:</span> What are some of the consequences of a church, seminary or denomination tolerating false teachers?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Answer:</span> This is a hard one to answer. Any church, seminary or denomination will have a range of views. Some of those views will be wrong. Nevertheless there are some views which are so wrong that tolerating them takes the church, seminary or denomination beyond a critical mass, so to speak. When that happens, I think it's clear that error multiplies and will not be confined simply to the original mistake, and at a more fundamental level the tendency is for the organization in question to stop seeking truth and answers but to rest content with the existence of conflicting opinions. In that way the search for truth is a casualty and I feel that that leads to an exponential growth in problems.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Question:</span> Hilary of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Poitiers</span> said that 'Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the word written. The guilt is that of the expositor, not of the text.' What are the danger signs of this very thing happening in a minister's ministry?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Answer:</span> I think the Hilary quote is brilliant. He also makes the point <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">that</span> a heretic uses the texts of Scripture but connects them in a way <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">that</span> the Scripture does not. Heretics do have an order, says Hilary (in respect of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Arian</span> heresy), but the order is one that is imposed and is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">the</span> heretic's own...."<br /><br />p 180, 181 <span style="font-style: italic;">Risking the Truth</span> by Martin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Downes</span>, 2009Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-52958542613370683492011-01-17T14:07:00.000-08:002011-01-17T14:25:04.009-08:00What is the ACNA?<div style="font: 21.9px Times; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size:130%;">ANGLICAN CHURCH</span></div><div style="color: rgb(127, 127, 127); font: 15.9px Times; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size:130%;">IN NORTH AMERICA</span></div><div style="font: 12px Times; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Reaching North America with the Transforming Love of Jesus Christ</span></div><div style="color: rgb(189, 1, 0); font: 20px Helvetica; margin: 0px;"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b>Our Genesis</b><br /><br />Globally, regionally and locally, Anglicanism is in the process of reformation. Within the last decades, the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada have increasingly accommodated and incorporated un-Biblical, un-Anglican practices and teaching.<br /><br />In the context of this widening theological gap, the existing geography-based organizational model of the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada became problematic for orthodox Anglicans. Orthodox parishes, clergy and dioceses that upheld Biblical authority and historic Anglican practice became isolated within their existing structures. </span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">Distressed churches and entire dioceses began to disaffiliate from the established provinces in North America and seek episcopal oversight and spiritual care from Anglican Provinces and leaders in other parts of the world, including the primates and churches of Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South America and Uganda. Beginning in 2000 with the Church of Rwanda, these leaders have responded by accepting orthodox Anglican parishes and dioceses in North America into their care.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">In February 2005, leading orthodox bishops and ministries representing a number of different Anglican jurisdictions in North America launched the Common Cause Partnership. In September 2007, the bishops of the partnership gathered to begin shaping a unified and orthodox Anglican church in Canada and the United States. The inaugural meeting of the governing council, held on 17 December 2007, elected the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan as the moderator of the Common Cause Partnership.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">Then in June 2008, Anglican leaders from around the world gathered at the Global Anglican Future conference and, among other decisions, determined that the North American Anglican groups under their care and united in the Common Cause Partnership should form a united Anglican body and seek recognition as a province in the Anglican Communion.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">Following significant formational work by the Common Cause Partners, these same Anglican leaders have now recognized the resulting ecclesial structure – the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) – as authentically Anglican and have commended formal recognition of ACNA to the other leaders in the Communion. During this period of transition, bishops within ACNA will retain membership in the House of Bishops of the province in which they were members prior to the formation of ACNA.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">In bringing together so many faithful Anglicans and Anglican Churches, the ACNA has demonstrated its commitment to unity within the bounds of truth. It represents the reuniting of orthodox Anglicans who have been squeezed out of the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada by successive changes to historic Christian teaching and Anglican practice. Unique among the members of ACNA, the Reformed Episcopal Church was founded in 1873. It has remained faithful to the unchanging Gospel of Jesus Christ for its 135 year history and is now reuniting with others who share the same commitment to the Word of God.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">Founding members of the Common Cause Partnership</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">The ecclesial and non-ecclesial organizations which have worked together to form the 28 dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America are:</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone</i><br />Diocese of Fort Worth<br />Diocese of Pittsburgh </span><span style=";font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />Diocese of Quincy </span><span style=";font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />Diocese of San Joaquin </span><span style=";font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />Anglican Network in Canada -<br />Various missionary initiatives in the United States</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Nigeria</i><br />Convocation of Anglicans in North America<br /><br /><i>Under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Rwanda</i><br />Anglican Mission in the Americas (including the Anglican Coalition in Canada)<br /><br /><i>Under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Kenya</i><br />Various missionary initiatives in the United States</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Uganda</i><br />Various missionary initiatives in the United States</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Independent Anglican Church</i><br />Reformed Episcopal Church</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Non-ecclesial founding members of the Common Cause Partnership</i><br />American Anglican Council<br />Forward in Faith North America<br />Anglican Communion Network</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">800 Maplewood Avenue</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> ▪ Ambridge PA 15003 ▪ Phone 724</span>-266-9400 ▪ www.anglicanchurch.net</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> </div>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-80944919624485547682011-01-17T14:04:00.000-08:002011-01-17T14:06:46.436-08:00Jerusalem Statement<div style="font: 20px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">The Jerusalem Declaration<br /><br /></span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit:</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.<br /><br /></span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">1.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />2.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />3.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />4.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />5.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Savior from sin, judgment and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />6.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />7.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We recognize that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />8.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />9.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptize, teach and bring new believers to maturity.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />10.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />11.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognize the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />12.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />13.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.</span></div><div style="font: 10px Arial; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />14.</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.</span></div>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-25408779128642941112009-12-03T21:32:00.000-08:002009-12-03T21:34:08.350-08:00Wisdom from J.I. PackerThree keys to real estate: Location, location, location.<br /><br />Three keys to ministry: <span style="font-weight: bold;">"You have three priorities: teach, teach, and teach. Evangelical churches are weaker than we realize because we don't teach the confessions and doctrine. Set new standards in teaching. Understand the word catechesis, and practice that art." - J.I. Packer<br /></span>Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-27535023161596410472009-11-24T14:30:00.000-08:002009-11-24T14:31:59.107-08:00The Necessity of the Articles of Religion - Mark ThompsonThe Thirty-nine Articles provide the only secure anchor for an authentic Anglican identity. This is after all the foundational doctrinal statement of the reformed church of England, drafted by the reforming bishops, endorsed by the lay members of the church in parliament, and situated as the touchstone of Anglican theology and practice ever since. Whatever other categories, principles or documents may be presented as integral to the heart of Anglicanism, the simple fact is that the Articles tell Anglicans who they are.<br /><br />The Articles were never intended to be exhaustive. They are not a comprehensive systematic theology, an Anglican answer to Calvin's Institutes or Melanchthon's Loci Communes. Nevertheless, they do provide the contours of Anglican polity, Anglican practice, and the Anglican commitment to biblical doctrine. They do not claim to be the final authority — that final authority was and is Scripture itself, the word of God written (Article 20) — but they do have a subsidiary authority. Insofar as they are in fact a faithful expression of biblical truth, they rightfully test all contemporary claims to the Anglican inheritance.<br /><br />One of the freshest and most exciting developments in recent Anglican theology is a return to a serious and respectful study of the Articles. A number of studies have been published in the past few years and are about to be published over the next year or so, all of which seek to expound the doctrine of the Articles as a powerful force in the renewal of Anglican identity worldwide. The Articles do not present us with a moribund theology, one bound irretrievably to discredited epistemological and ontological commitments. Here is a lively confession of trust in Christ which still has the capacity to challenge us to greater fidelity to God's self-revelation in Christ and through the inspired Scriptures. Here is an antidote to fearful, sloppy thinking. The failure of courage that has characterised so much Anglican theology in the last two centuries — as one conviction after another has been surrendered in the doomed attempt to win favour with the world around us — need not determine the future. The 39 Articles are once again the cutting edge!<br /><br />However, not all references to the 39 Articles today take them seriously on their own terms. Current attempts to revive Newman's interpretation of the Articles lack integrity today just as they did in Newman's time (even he could not sustain it in the long run). Attempts to read an Arminian theology into them, when plainly this is at best anachronistic and at worst a reading of them that is determinedly 'against the grain', must also fail. The suggestion that they are an historical document locked into the debates and concerns of the sixteenth century but without any real relevance to the twenty-first, fails to account for (1) the express intent of the authors; (2) the reaffirmation of the Articles in 1662, one hundred and ten years after they were drafted, when very different circumstances prevailed. The current Archbishop of Canterbury, who at one time assented to the Articles at his own ordination, has recently stated that the differences between Rome and the Anglican Communion — even the controversial ones such women's ordination and the acceptance of homosexuality — are merely secondary matters that ought not delay continued ecumenical advance, simply reaffirms his highly intelligent muddle-headedness.<br /><br />Are the Articles open to revision? In principle the answer must be 'yes', since they claim to be completely dependent for their authority on the teaching of Scripture. If it can be shown that at one point or other they contradict the teaching of Scripture, then the Articles must give way to Scripture. But the Articles must not be bent to any contemporary ecclesiastical, political or social agenda. They stand over against contemporary theologizing as a check on our hubris and idiosyncracies and as a challenge to our own blind spots. It would need an extraordinary consensus, and a clear demonstration that the changes were drawing us closer to the teaching of Scripture and not further from it, if there was any any substantial revision today.<br /><br />What is more, as legal argument in the nineteenth century established beyond doubt, the Articles interpret the Book of Common Prayer and not the other way around. Liturgical practice must flow out of theological conviction, not vice versa. Some of the official pronouncements from such bodies as the highly politicised Anglican Communion Office continue to peddle the argument that our theology is derived from the Book of Common Prayer or from the Ordinal. Of course these too are our foundational documents, alongside the 39 Articles. But each of these has a particular function, and the doctrinal standard is the 39 Articles. A failure to recognise this has brought in its wake a host of problems.<br /><br />The need of the moment is for the obfuscation of the establishment to be replaced by the clarity, boldness and rich edification of Anglicanism's foundational doctrinal statement. This can only result in the future health of this ailing denomination, as Christ crucified, risen and regnant takes his proper place amongst us, which will always be demonstrated by a thoroughgoing submission to the word by which he rules.Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-76379675049077777012009-11-24T14:27:00.000-08:002009-11-24T14:28:56.666-08:00The New 'Gospel' - by Kevin DeYoungThe Gospel Old and New<br /><br />Have you heard the New Gospel? It’s not been codified. It’s not owned by any one person or movement. But it is increasingly common.<br /><br />The New Gospel generally has four parts to it.<br /><br />It usually starts with an apology: “I’m sorry for my fellow Christians. I understand why you hate Christianity. It’s like that thing Ghandi said, ‘why can’t the Christians be more like their Christ?’ Christians are hypocritical, judgmental, and self-righteous. I know we screwed up with the Crusades, slavery, and the Witch Trials. All I can say is: I apologize. We’ve not give you a reason to believe.”<br /><br />Then there is an appeal to God as love: “I know you’ve seen the preachers with the sandwich boards and bullhorns saying ‘Repent or Die.’ But I’m here to tell you God is love. Look at Jesus. He hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He loved unconditionally. There is so much brokenness in the world, but the good news of the Bible is that God came to live right in the middle of our brokenness. He’s a messy God and his mission is love. ‘I did not come into the world to condemn the world,’ that’s what Jesus said (John 3:17). He loved everyone, no matter who you were or what you had done. That’s what got him killed.”<br /><br />The third part of the New Gospel is an invitation to join God on his mission in the world: “It’s a shame that Christians haven’t shown the world this God. But that’s what we are called to do. God’s kingdom is being established on earth. On earth! Not in some distant heaven after we die, but right here, right now. Even though we all mess up, we are God’s agents to show his love and bring this kingdom. And we don’t do that by scaring people with religious language or by forcing them into some religious mold. We do it by love. That’s the way of Jesus. That’s what it means to follow him. We love our neighbor and work for peace and justice. God wants us to become the good news for a troubled planet.”<br /><br />And finally, there is a studied ambivalence about eternity: “Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in life after death. But our focus should be on what kind of life we can live right now. Will some people go to hell when they die? Who am I to say? Does God really require the right prayer or the right statement of faith to get into heaven? I don’t know, but I guess I can leave that in his hands. My job is not to judge people, but to bless. In the end, God’s amazing grace may surprise us all. That’s certainly what I hope for.”<br /><br />Why So Hot?<br />This way of telling the good news of Christianity is very chic. It’s popular for several reasons.<br /><br />1. It is partially true. God is love. The kingdom has come. Christians can be stupid. The particulars of the New Gospel are often justifiable.<br /><br />2. It deals with strawmen. The bad guys are apocalyptic street preachers, Crusaders, and caricatures of an evangelical view of salvation.<br /><br />3. The New Gospel leads people to believe wrong things without explicitly stating those wrong things. That is, Christians who espouse the New Gospel feel safe from criticism because they never actually said belief is unimportant, or there is no hell, or that Jesus isn’t the only way, or that God has no wrath, or that there is no need for repentance. These distortions are not explicitly stated, but the New Gospel is presented in such a way that non-believers could, and by design should, come to these conclusions. In other words, the New Gospel allows the non-Christian to hear what he wants, while still providing an out against criticism from other Christians. The preacher of the New Gospel can always say when challenged, “But I never said I don’t believe those things.”<br /><br />4. It is manageable. The New Gospel meets people where they are and leaves them there. It appeals to love and helping our neighbors. And it makes the appeal in a way that repudiates any hint of judgmentalism, intolerance, or religiosity. This is bound to be popular. It tells us what we want to hear and gives us something we can do.<br /><br />5. The New Gospel is inspirational. This is what makes the message so appealing to young people in particular. They get the thrill and purpose of being part of a big cause, without all the baggage of the Church’s history, doctrine, and hard edges. Who wouldn’t want to join a revolution of love?<br /><br />6. The New Gospel has no offense to it. This is why the message is so attractive. The bad guys are all “out there.” This can be a problem for any of us. We are all prone to soft-pedaling the gospel, only presenting the attractive parts and failing to mention where Christ does not just comfort but also confronts. And it must confront more than the sins of others. It is far too easy to use the New Gospel as a way to differentiate yourself from all the bad Christians. This makes you look good and confirms to the non-Christians that the obstacle to their commitment lies with the hypocrisy and failure of others. There is no talk of repentance or judgment. There is no hint that Jesus was killed, not so much for his inclusive love as his outrageous Godlike claims (Matt. 26:63-66; 27:39-43). The New Gospel only talks of salvation in strictly cosmic terms. In fact, the door is left wide open to imagine that hell, if it even exists, is probably not a big threat for most people.<br /><br />Why So Wrong?<br />It shouldn’t be hard to see what is missing in the new gospel. What’s missing is the old gospel, the one preached by the Apostles, the one defined in 1 Corinthians 15, the one summarized later in The Apostles’ Creed.<br /><br />“But what you call the New Gospel is not a substitute for the old gospel. We still believe all that stuff.”<br /><br />Ok, but why don’t you say it? And not just privately to your friends or on a statement of faith somewhere, but in public? You don’t have to be meaner, but you do have to be clearer. You don’t have to unload the whole truck of systematic theology on someone, but to leave the impression that hell is no big deal is so un-Jesus like (Matt. 10:26-33). And when you don’t talk about the need for faith and repentance you are very un-apostolic (Acts 2:38; 16:31).<br /><br />“But we are just building bridges. We are relating to the culture first, speaking in a language they can understand, presenting the parts of the gospel that make the most sense to them. Once we have their trust and attention, then we can disciple and teach them about sin, repentance, faith and all the rest. This is only pre-evangelism.”<br /><br />Yes, it’s true, we don’t have to start our conversations where we want to end up. But does the New Gospel really prime the pump for evangelism or just mislead the non-Christian into a false assurance? It’s one thing to open a door for further conversation. It’s another to make Christianity so palatable that it sounds like something the non-Christian already does. And this is assuming the best about the New Gospel, that underneath there really is a desire to get the old gospel out.<br /><br />Paul’s approach with non-Christians in Athens is instructive for us (Acts 17:16-34). First, Paul is provoked that the city is so full of idols (16). His preaching is not guided by his disappointment with other Christians, but by his anger over unbelief. Next, he gets permission to speak (19-20). Paul did not berate people. He spoke to those who were willing to listen. But then look at what he does. He makes some cultural connection (22-23, 28), but from there he shows the contrast between the Athenian understanding of God and the way God really is (24-29). His message is not about a way of life, but about worshiping the true God in the right way. After that, he urges repentance (30), warns of judgment (31), and talks about Jesus’ resurrection (31).<br /><br />The result is that some mocked (32). Who in the world mocks the New Gospel? There is nothing not to like. There is no scandal in a message about lame Christians, a loving God, changing the world, and how most of us are most likely not going to hell. This message will never be mocked, but Paul’s Mars Hill sermon was. And keep in mind, this teaching in Athens was only an entre into the Christian message. This was just the beginning, after which some wanted to hear him again (32). Paul said more in his opening salvo than some Christians ever dare to say. We may not be able to say everything Paul said at Athens all at once, but we certainly must not give the impression in our “pre-evangelism” that repentance, judgment, the necessity of faith, the importance of right belief, the centrality of the cross and the resurrection, the sinfulness of sin and the fallenness of man–the stuff that some suggest will be our actual evangelism–are outdated relics of a mean-spirited, hurtful Christianity.<br /><br />A Final Plea<br />Please, please, please, if you are enamored with the New Gospel or anything like it, consider if you are really being fair with your fellow Christians in always throwing them under the bus. Consider if you are preaching like Jesus did, who called people, not first of all to a way of life, but to repent and believe (Mark 1:15). And as me and my friends consider if we lack the necessary patience and humility to speak tenderly with non-Christians, consider if your God is a lopsided cartoon God who never takes offense at sin (because sin is more than just un-neighborliness) and never pours out wrath (except for the occasional judgment against the judgmental). Consider if you are giving due attention to the cross and the Lamb of God who died there to take away the sin of the world. Consider if your explanation of the Christian message sounds anything like what we hear from the Apostles in the book of Acts when they engage the world.<br /><br />This is no small issue. And it is not just a matter of emphasis. The New Gospel will not sustain the church. It cannot change the heart. And it does not save. It is crucial, therefore, that our evangelical schools, camps, conferences, publishing houses, and churches can discern the new gospel from the old.Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36362051.post-1101545567357876952009-10-27T17:07:00.001-07:002009-10-27T17:09:23.635-07:00Fullness of Knowledge<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CJames%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal">After reading a book review, I decided that I really wanted to order that book.<span style=""> </span>Before I ordered it, I thought, “I think I might have that book already.”<span style=""> </span>After looking around, I found it. There it was.<span style=""> </span>Now, I had a greater appreciation for what I had purchased some time ago, and I began to read it.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">As we have been learning from the book of Colossians, the Christians were being urged to look for something that they already had, but were overlooking.<span style=""> </span>The false teachers were suggesting that the ordinary church members were spiritually deficient and needed a spiritual filling.<span style=""> </span>Years ago, a member of my congregation suggested to me that I needed to move beyond the Bible and preach something else!<span style=""> </span>I’m not sure what he had in mind.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">Paul reminds his readers that in Christ, they had already “been filled in him.”<span style=""> </span><b><i>Colossians 2:10 (ESV).<span style=""> </span></i></b><span style="">Further, he added that it had pleased God for all his fullness to dwell in his Son, Jesus Christ.<span style=""> </span>(<st1:place st="on"><st1:state st="on"><b><i>Col</i></b></st1:state></st1:place><b><i> 2.9</i></b>)<span style=""> </span>What they were being urged to get, they already had – that is, reconciliation with God through faith in Jesus Christ which enabled them to “</span>delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,” (<st1:state st="on"><st1:place st="on"><b style=""><i style="">Col</i></b></st1:place></st1:state><b style=""><i style=""> 1.13).</i></b><span style=""> </span>You can’t get more than that!<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The troublemakers were not denying that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but they were implying that a satisfactory spiritual life required more than a relationship with God through Christ.<span style=""> </span>But, what was really needed in their lives was a greater realization of what they had already been given when they heard and responded to the gospel of grace concerning the reconciling love of Jesus Christ.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">That is why Paul prays for the Christians there that they would “filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, <b><sup><span style="color:black;">{10} </span></sup></b>so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.” (<st1:place st="on"><st1:state st="on"><b style="">Col</b></st1:state></st1:place><b style=""> 1.10)<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">I doubt there is anyone in our church that doesn’t have bible around.<span style=""> </span>Dust it off (if you need to), for you will find more treasure there than you could discover anywhere else in the universe.<span style=""> </span>And each of us can pray.<span style=""> </span>Just start talking to God and begin asking that you may know him better.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">But you must be willing to ask, and seek and to knock that the Lord may fill you will knowledge of his will, and we also learn that the will of God corresponds exactly with the joy and happiness which God desires for all his children.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></p> Jim Basingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17511731400786800039noreply@blogger.com0