We haven't posted anything in awhile, but we are still here. Helen is still teaching her little ones and preparing them for their big tests coming up in a few weeks. She's down to two more months in her first year of teaching. She's already excited about next year and thinking about what she'll do differently. I have been busily reading and writing for school. April is going to be very busy for me. I have almost 2000 pages worth of reading to do and two fairly large papers to finish. I've started one of the papers, and I'm about halfway done. It's crazy to think that this semester is winding to a close and that I'll be over 1/3 of the way done with my degree.
Church has been going well. Last Sunday, the Church voted unanimously to keep me as their worship leader. (I had been serving as Interim since January.) It's a blessing to know that I'm doing something right, and the Lord has really blessed Helen and I to be at such a great place. I've learned so much about ministry just in the last three months, and I can't imagine what I'll learn in the months and years to come, Lord willing.
Next Friday is Good Friday. Helen and I will be leaving on a flight that leaves at 630am and we'll arrive in Texas around 11am. We'll be in Texas for the week, and we're really looking forward to going back and seeing everyone. It will be a good break, although I will probably be working diligently on school stuff while there.
Thanks for your support and prayer.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
ANNA!
Well, here are the promised pictures of our time with Anna. All but one of the pictures were taken when we went to Mammoth Cave. Anna's camera has all the other pictures, I'll try to get them from her.
Ignoring warning signs, Anna crosses into a dried up creek bed. She really is a daredevil.
Anna posing on a bridge that leads to a little spring. How nice.
Brett and Anna posing inside the cave. That thing was spooky!
Wasting time before the tour started.
Waiting for the tour to start.
The tour started late...
It started really late.
At the 1st round NCAA game in Lexington against Penn. Ryan hooked us up and we had great seats. Hope Anna isn't beaten mercilessly for sporting a&m gear. We all know where her heart is anyway. Thanks and gig 'em.
Ignoring warning signs, Anna crosses into a dried up creek bed. She really is a daredevil.
Anna posing on a bridge that leads to a little spring. How nice.
Brett and Anna posing inside the cave. That thing was spooky!
Wasting time before the tour started.
Waiting for the tour to start.
The tour started late...
It started really late.
At the 1st round NCAA game in Lexington against Penn. Ryan hooked us up and we had great seats. Hope Anna isn't beaten mercilessly for sporting a&m gear. We all know where her heart is anyway. Thanks and gig 'em.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
BCG Article
This is a great article on Billy Gillispie from the Houston Chronicle. Texas A&M is very lucky to have a coach of this caliber and they would be very stupid not to do what it takes to keep him around. Dollar Bill, give him whatever he wants and do whatever it takes to keep Billy around.
"Why not us? Why not Texas A&M?"
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Off to Lexington...
Because I am friends with a generous and thoughtful person (thanks nichols), Helen, Anna, and I scored some free tickets to watch the fightin' texas aggie bball team beat the ever livin, ever lovin, compound, complex etc etc...
Make sure you have us winning it all in your bracket. This could win you some big bucks.
"That's what I do!"
BTHO Penn! Whoop!
Make sure you have us winning it all in your bracket. This could win you some big bucks.
"That's what I do!"
BTHO Penn! Whoop!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Global warming?
thoughts from this article from msnbc.com.
Scientists are reporting that within a few decades, hundreds of millions of people will face starvation and many animals face extinction. One scientist claims that we as a human race are on the brink of extinction as well. Are these scientists blowing smoke? Are they overreacting? Or are they right? Are humans really facing a global disaster?
What does this mean for Christians? How should we respond to these claims by the scientific community? We know that not everyone will be destroyed because our Lord hasn't returned yet. But that doesn't discount a terrible change in climate that could lead to the destruction of millions of people.
Here are some of the claims from this report:
Is this an overreaction from the scientific community? What are we to think?
Scientists are reporting that within a few decades, hundreds of millions of people will face starvation and many animals face extinction. One scientist claims that we as a human race are on the brink of extinction as well. Are these scientists blowing smoke? Are they overreacting? Or are they right? Are humans really facing a global disaster?
What does this mean for Christians? How should we respond to these claims by the scientific community? We know that not everyone will be destroyed because our Lord hasn't returned yet. But that doesn't discount a terrible change in climate that could lead to the destruction of millions of people.
Here are some of the claims from this report:
* Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.
* Death rates for the world’s poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.
* Europe’s small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent’s large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe’s plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.
* By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming’s effects.
* About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.
* Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and “ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels,” turning a small health risk into a substantial one.
* Polar bears in the wild and other animals will be pushed to extinction.
* At first, more food will be grown. For example, soybean and rice yields in Latin America will increase starting in a couple of years. Areas outside the tropics, especially the northern latitudes, will see longer growing seasons and healthier forests.
Is this an overreaction from the scientific community? What are we to think?
Monday, March 05, 2007
Why Must I Fail in Every Attempt at Masonry?
Why must life be so hard? Why must I fail in every attempt at masonry?
Saturday, March 03, 2007
The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views Review
The Meaning of the Millennium outlines four views about the coming of Christ and the millennium. Each of the four authors defends their viewpoint in a chapter, and at the end of each chapter, the other three authors challenge that view. The authors attempt to firmly establish their position, but leave the reader with a few additional unanswered questions.
Summary
George Ladd begins the work with his explanation of historic, nondispensational premillennialism. He explains that premillennialism is “the doctrine stating that after the Second Coming of Christ, he will reign for a thousand years over the earth before the final consummation of God’s redemptive purpose …” (17). He asserts that Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted by the New Testament, and also claims that the nondispensational view “forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament,” since a contemporary Christian cannot be sure how Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled (27). Ladd then presents a brief exegesis of the Book of Revelation where he concludes that the entire argument rests on the interpretation of Revelation 20:4-5. He affirms that there are two resurrections: one at the beginning and one at the end of the millennium (37). Finally, Ladd explains that the purpose of prophecy regarding the millennium is not to be a complete rendering of things to come, but rather to encourage believers to endure their present sufferings (39).
Hermann Hoyt makes similar conclusions albeit through a different method. He argues that the purpose of God from the beginning of time is to establish His kingdom, and that both Old Testament and New Testament prophecy should be interpreted as literally as possible (66). Where Ladd presents an uneasiness of interpreting Old Testament prophecy, Hoyt claims that if taken literally, many Old Testament prophecies have not been fulfilled yet, and must be applied to the End (67). Next, Hoyt examines the Scriptures with regard to the mediatorial kingdom. He concludes from the Old Testament that the mediatorial kingdom will be a literal, physical kingdom governed by a King (78-9). Hoyt asserts that Christ must have referred to that same kingdom in His teachings since the kingdom is always mentioned in conjunction with Old Testament prophecy and Christ never makes a distinction between two different kingdoms (85). Finally, he explains that the present time is a transition period for the mediatorial kingdom in which Christ will be literally present (91). When the mediatorial kingdom comes, Christ will place all His enemies under subjection, and once “this mission is accomplished, he will then voluntarily deliver the kingdom into the hands of the Father, and the mediatorial kingdom will be merged with the universal kingdom …” (92).
Loraine Boettner, a postmillennialist, takes a different approach to defending his view. Instead of using his chapter to examine many specific passages of Scripture, he simply explains her position, supports it with logic, and concludes with an exhortation. First, Boettner directly explains his postmillennial position, stating
Postmillennialism is a view … that holds that the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the gospel … that the world eventually is to be Christianized, and that the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace… (117).
In contrast to premillennialists, postmillennialists understand that when the text warrants, prophecies must be taken figuratively instead of literally, and he supports this with scriptural examples (134). Finally, Boettner explains that all positions regarding the millennium agree that the Bible is authoritative and that Christ will return, and that there is only disagreement in an area of interpretation and should not be divisive (140-1).
Anthony A. Hoekema defends the last position, amillennialism, by an examination of applicable Scripture and then a description of the key points of the position. First, Hoekema asserts that the Book of Revelation should not be viewed as a chronological sequence of events, but rather “progressive parallelism,” where much of the events take place coincidentally (156). This directly affects the reading of Revelation 20:1-6, where Hoekema concludes that the millennial reign of Christ occurs before His return (160). He asserts that the millennium is nothing more than figurative language to describe a complete period of the reign of Christ from heaven, in which believers who have passed away also reign (169). Hoekema also claims that many prophecies used to describe the millennium should not be viewed as literal, future events, but rather should be read figuratively. (172). Finally, Hoekema briefly explains the amillennialist position, claiming that Christ’s return will be a “single event.” (182). At His return, both believers and unbelievers will be resurrected, and those who are still alive will be transformed into their new body (182). This is followed by the final judgment and the eternal state (183-4).
Strengths and Weaknesses
Each author presents an adequate defense of their positions, but there also remain a few weaknesses that must be addressed. First, Ladd demonstrates a deep understanding of his position, and very clearly indicates that the debate centers upon Revelation 20:1-6 (32). He spends a significant portion of his chapter explaining how he believes this Scripture should be interpreted and why he interprets it as such (36). He holds tightly to his hermeneutic of literal interpretation and claims that when interpreted properly, Scripture teaches that there are two resurrections of the dead (37). The strength of his argument is found in his regard for Scripture’s authority and his commitment to a literal interpretation of Scripture.
However, he fails to use Old Testament prophecy about the coming of Christ because he believes only the New Testament may interpret the Old Testament. This weakens his argument because he ignores the rich wealth of information in over half of the Bible (27). More solid conclusions may be drawn, as Hoyt argues, if a believer interprets the New Testament in light of the Old Testament (43).
Hoyt succeeds where Ladd fell short, claiming that “all the biblical material must be surveyed …” (71). He examines a large amount of Scripture from both Old and New Testaments and from there makes his conclusions. Hoyt claims throughout his essay that he has chosen the “biblical” interpretation, and this appears to be very accurate due to the large amount of Scriptural interpretation and proof-texts (84). On the other hand, claiming to have the “biblical” interpretation inaccurately assumes that the other views are not biblical. The problem is not that the other views are unbiblical, but that there are differences in the interpretation of the biblical data. Obviously, there is only one possible correct view, but since we do not have the complete answers recorded in Scripture, proponents on all sides may claim their view is the biblical one.
Boettner’s essay defending postmillennialism explains the position very simply and adequately. While some of the other authors wait until the end of their respective chapters to state their position, he begins his essay by succinctly defining his interpretation which allows the reader to easily understand her position. Also, Boettner demonstrates a genuine concern for the Church by reminding proponents of all positions that they “agree [Christ] will return personally, visibly and in great glory.” (119). He rightly understands that the issue of the millennium should not be divisive among believers because it is not an essential issue with regard to salvation.
However, Boettner does not use much Scripture to make his position. In fact, most of the Scripture he uses is to demonstrate that Scripture cannot and should not always be interpreted literally. His argument would be stronger if he supported it with more Scripture. Also, attempting to prove that the millennium will be brought about gradually by forces already present in the world, Boettner claims that “Today the world at large is on a far higher plane. Christian principles are the accepted standards in many nations even though they are not consistently practiced.” (126). He claims that the world is moving toward righteousness, prosperity, and the return of Christ (132). In reality, the world seems to be heading in the opposite direction. Crimes and other atrocities seem to be on the rise, while Christian perspective appears to be constantly questioned due to the onset of postmodernism.
Hoekema thoroughly explains why he interprets Revelation 20:1-6 differently by demonstrating his overall interpretation of the Book of Revelation. He makes an intriguing case showing how Revelation can be separated into divisions, and “these seven sections are parallel to each other [revealing] a certain amount of eschatological progress.” (158). Through this framework, his interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6 that begins at the end of the New Testament time period and continues to the Second Coming of Christ flows logically (168). Also, since Revelation uses much figurative language, Hoekema finds strength in his argument that the millennium indicates a completeness of time, and not necessarily a literal millennium (161). By shifting the understanding of the Book of Revelation and also by appealing to the symbolic nature of the book, Hoekema argues compellingly for amillennialism.
However, Hoekema tends to treat Revelation as if it is all symbolism and mostly about events that have already happened. He dismisses the notion that some of the events in Revelation could be literal or future. Also, as Ladd discusses, some of Hoekema’s interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6 is derived from assumptions that may be faulty (189). For example, Hoekema claims that the binding of Satan mentioned in the Gospels is the same as that mentioned in Revelation 20, but this is not an obvious conclusion. Ladd contests that the binding of Satan described in the Gospels refers to his defeat on the cross and Revelation expresses something different (189).
Remaining Questions
After reading and critiquing these essays, a few questions about each position remain. First, how do nondispensational premillennialists apply unfulfilled Old Testament prophecy? Do they assume that all Old Testament prophecy that is not mentioned specifically in the New Testament has been fulfilled? Second, dispensational premillennialists seem quick to apply Old Testament prophecy to the future, but how can they be sure that they apply these Scriptures appropriately? Nondispensationlists stand on one side fearing to apply any Old Testament prophecy without New Testament interpretation, but dispensationalists must be careful in this endeavor. Where do they draw the line? Third, postmillennialists argue that the world is improving and Christian values are becoming standards. How do they support their assertion with reality where the world appears more hostile to Christian values? Fourth, while ammillennialists hold to progressive parallelism in Revelation, are there many other notable theologians who support this interpretation of Revelation? Is it wise to base an entire millennial position from one small passage of Scripture?
Summary
George Ladd begins the work with his explanation of historic, nondispensational premillennialism. He explains that premillennialism is “the doctrine stating that after the Second Coming of Christ, he will reign for a thousand years over the earth before the final consummation of God’s redemptive purpose …” (17). He asserts that Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted by the New Testament, and also claims that the nondispensational view “forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament,” since a contemporary Christian cannot be sure how Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled (27). Ladd then presents a brief exegesis of the Book of Revelation where he concludes that the entire argument rests on the interpretation of Revelation 20:4-5. He affirms that there are two resurrections: one at the beginning and one at the end of the millennium (37). Finally, Ladd explains that the purpose of prophecy regarding the millennium is not to be a complete rendering of things to come, but rather to encourage believers to endure their present sufferings (39).
Hermann Hoyt makes similar conclusions albeit through a different method. He argues that the purpose of God from the beginning of time is to establish His kingdom, and that both Old Testament and New Testament prophecy should be interpreted as literally as possible (66). Where Ladd presents an uneasiness of interpreting Old Testament prophecy, Hoyt claims that if taken literally, many Old Testament prophecies have not been fulfilled yet, and must be applied to the End (67). Next, Hoyt examines the Scriptures with regard to the mediatorial kingdom. He concludes from the Old Testament that the mediatorial kingdom will be a literal, physical kingdom governed by a King (78-9). Hoyt asserts that Christ must have referred to that same kingdom in His teachings since the kingdom is always mentioned in conjunction with Old Testament prophecy and Christ never makes a distinction between two different kingdoms (85). Finally, he explains that the present time is a transition period for the mediatorial kingdom in which Christ will be literally present (91). When the mediatorial kingdom comes, Christ will place all His enemies under subjection, and once “this mission is accomplished, he will then voluntarily deliver the kingdom into the hands of the Father, and the mediatorial kingdom will be merged with the universal kingdom …” (92).
Loraine Boettner, a postmillennialist, takes a different approach to defending his view. Instead of using his chapter to examine many specific passages of Scripture, he simply explains her position, supports it with logic, and concludes with an exhortation. First, Boettner directly explains his postmillennial position, stating
Postmillennialism is a view … that holds that the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the gospel … that the world eventually is to be Christianized, and that the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace… (117).
In contrast to premillennialists, postmillennialists understand that when the text warrants, prophecies must be taken figuratively instead of literally, and he supports this with scriptural examples (134). Finally, Boettner explains that all positions regarding the millennium agree that the Bible is authoritative and that Christ will return, and that there is only disagreement in an area of interpretation and should not be divisive (140-1).
Anthony A. Hoekema defends the last position, amillennialism, by an examination of applicable Scripture and then a description of the key points of the position. First, Hoekema asserts that the Book of Revelation should not be viewed as a chronological sequence of events, but rather “progressive parallelism,” where much of the events take place coincidentally (156). This directly affects the reading of Revelation 20:1-6, where Hoekema concludes that the millennial reign of Christ occurs before His return (160). He asserts that the millennium is nothing more than figurative language to describe a complete period of the reign of Christ from heaven, in which believers who have passed away also reign (169). Hoekema also claims that many prophecies used to describe the millennium should not be viewed as literal, future events, but rather should be read figuratively. (172). Finally, Hoekema briefly explains the amillennialist position, claiming that Christ’s return will be a “single event.” (182). At His return, both believers and unbelievers will be resurrected, and those who are still alive will be transformed into their new body (182). This is followed by the final judgment and the eternal state (183-4).
Strengths and Weaknesses
Each author presents an adequate defense of their positions, but there also remain a few weaknesses that must be addressed. First, Ladd demonstrates a deep understanding of his position, and very clearly indicates that the debate centers upon Revelation 20:1-6 (32). He spends a significant portion of his chapter explaining how he believes this Scripture should be interpreted and why he interprets it as such (36). He holds tightly to his hermeneutic of literal interpretation and claims that when interpreted properly, Scripture teaches that there are two resurrections of the dead (37). The strength of his argument is found in his regard for Scripture’s authority and his commitment to a literal interpretation of Scripture.
However, he fails to use Old Testament prophecy about the coming of Christ because he believes only the New Testament may interpret the Old Testament. This weakens his argument because he ignores the rich wealth of information in over half of the Bible (27). More solid conclusions may be drawn, as Hoyt argues, if a believer interprets the New Testament in light of the Old Testament (43).
Hoyt succeeds where Ladd fell short, claiming that “all the biblical material must be surveyed …” (71). He examines a large amount of Scripture from both Old and New Testaments and from there makes his conclusions. Hoyt claims throughout his essay that he has chosen the “biblical” interpretation, and this appears to be very accurate due to the large amount of Scriptural interpretation and proof-texts (84). On the other hand, claiming to have the “biblical” interpretation inaccurately assumes that the other views are not biblical. The problem is not that the other views are unbiblical, but that there are differences in the interpretation of the biblical data. Obviously, there is only one possible correct view, but since we do not have the complete answers recorded in Scripture, proponents on all sides may claim their view is the biblical one.
Boettner’s essay defending postmillennialism explains the position very simply and adequately. While some of the other authors wait until the end of their respective chapters to state their position, he begins his essay by succinctly defining his interpretation which allows the reader to easily understand her position. Also, Boettner demonstrates a genuine concern for the Church by reminding proponents of all positions that they “agree [Christ] will return personally, visibly and in great glory.” (119). He rightly understands that the issue of the millennium should not be divisive among believers because it is not an essential issue with regard to salvation.
However, Boettner does not use much Scripture to make his position. In fact, most of the Scripture he uses is to demonstrate that Scripture cannot and should not always be interpreted literally. His argument would be stronger if he supported it with more Scripture. Also, attempting to prove that the millennium will be brought about gradually by forces already present in the world, Boettner claims that “Today the world at large is on a far higher plane. Christian principles are the accepted standards in many nations even though they are not consistently practiced.” (126). He claims that the world is moving toward righteousness, prosperity, and the return of Christ (132). In reality, the world seems to be heading in the opposite direction. Crimes and other atrocities seem to be on the rise, while Christian perspective appears to be constantly questioned due to the onset of postmodernism.
Hoekema thoroughly explains why he interprets Revelation 20:1-6 differently by demonstrating his overall interpretation of the Book of Revelation. He makes an intriguing case showing how Revelation can be separated into divisions, and “these seven sections are parallel to each other [revealing] a certain amount of eschatological progress.” (158). Through this framework, his interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6 that begins at the end of the New Testament time period and continues to the Second Coming of Christ flows logically (168). Also, since Revelation uses much figurative language, Hoekema finds strength in his argument that the millennium indicates a completeness of time, and not necessarily a literal millennium (161). By shifting the understanding of the Book of Revelation and also by appealing to the symbolic nature of the book, Hoekema argues compellingly for amillennialism.
However, Hoekema tends to treat Revelation as if it is all symbolism and mostly about events that have already happened. He dismisses the notion that some of the events in Revelation could be literal or future. Also, as Ladd discusses, some of Hoekema’s interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6 is derived from assumptions that may be faulty (189). For example, Hoekema claims that the binding of Satan mentioned in the Gospels is the same as that mentioned in Revelation 20, but this is not an obvious conclusion. Ladd contests that the binding of Satan described in the Gospels refers to his defeat on the cross and Revelation expresses something different (189).
Remaining Questions
After reading and critiquing these essays, a few questions about each position remain. First, how do nondispensational premillennialists apply unfulfilled Old Testament prophecy? Do they assume that all Old Testament prophecy that is not mentioned specifically in the New Testament has been fulfilled? Second, dispensational premillennialists seem quick to apply Old Testament prophecy to the future, but how can they be sure that they apply these Scriptures appropriately? Nondispensationlists stand on one side fearing to apply any Old Testament prophecy without New Testament interpretation, but dispensationalists must be careful in this endeavor. Where do they draw the line? Third, postmillennialists argue that the world is improving and Christian values are becoming standards. How do they support their assertion with reality where the world appears more hostile to Christian values? Fourth, while ammillennialists hold to progressive parallelism in Revelation, are there many other notable theologians who support this interpretation of Revelation? Is it wise to base an entire millennial position from one small passage of Scripture?
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Mr. Clutch IV
Acie Law IV is clutch.
video evidence.
"That's what I do!" Acie Law IV upon drilling a 3 in Kevin Durant's face to send the game into OT.
and in 2006...
more evidence coming soon.
video evidence.
"That's what I do!" Acie Law IV upon drilling a 3 in Kevin Durant's face to send the game into OT.
and in 2006...
more evidence coming soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)