Wednesday, June 13, 2007

With Malice Toward None

My denomination, the PCA, is holding its annual General Assembly this week. Later today the PCA Study Committee report on the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Theology and New Perspective on Paul will be presented.

For those still trying to catch up on the debate, here are some last minute links:

Those with a keen eye will find my name (humbly) added to the latter document.

Not that I am anybody, but I have followed the Federal Vision issue since the first conference held at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, LA. At first the negative reaction and controversy surrounding it seemed like a tempest in a teapot. I sympathized then, and still do so now, with some of the concerns raised by those in the Federal Vision camp.

However, after reading the papers presented at the Knox Colloquiam (back before they were published in a book and available online), and continuing to try to read and follow the various arguments back and forth, I have come to be convinced that the Federal Vision theology is inconsistent with our doctrinal standards. More specifically, I believe the concerns expressed by Federal Vision advocates (such things as emphasis on covenant, the sacraments, the necessity of good works, and others) are well addressed by our historic doctrines as expressed in the Westminster Standards, and need no revision.

As my title indicates, I harbor no malice toward those in the Federal Vision camp, but respectfully believe that their doctrines do not fit in with the doctrines of the PCA. Their beliefs fit in better elsewhere.

I am not able to attend the General Assembly this year, but will follow the news with interest, and hope to catch the discussion and debate on the Study Committee Report on the GA webcast.

Labels: ,

Posted by Martin at 12:11 AM | | Comments

Monday, June 04, 2007

The Long and Winding Road

Finally finished!

After nine years I graduated from Westminster Seminary in California on Saturday. The ceremony was very nice, the best part of it being Hywel Jones' address on I Corinthians 15:1-11 and God's grace. What he said continues to bounce around in my head. It was a very powerful and moving exposition of God's Word.

I'll write more later, but suffice to say here that one of the other highlights was that all my family was able to be there, including my mom and dad from Seattle. That was gift enough, but they also gave a very generous gift that KMR and I have decided to put towards a use that will benefit the church I hope to plant later this year.

We had a very nice lunch after commencement with all the family and some very good friends as well. All in all it was a wonderful weekend.

Labels: ,

Posted by Martin at 7:20 AM | | Comments

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

The Value of Higher Education

Somewhere along the way while motoring all over the So Cal freeways this weekend I saw this vanity license plate:

IB4 USC

English major.

Obviously.

Posted by Martin at 9:24 PM | | Comments

Monday, April 30, 2007

Southern California Travels

This was a busy weekend, but very fun:

Friday night KMR, Half Pint and a friend picked me up from work and we drove to West L.A. to see a girls high school drama production of The Wizard of Oz. Why? My little sister played in their "orchestra" or "band" or whatever it was. The play was great. All of the actors stayed in character very well and - bonus! - they could actually sing. They put in some additional dialogue that was also very good. Late night, but very enjoyable.

Early Saturday I went out to Hemet for Vikinglord's frosh-soph invitational track meet. I got stuck in traffic in Riverside for a half hour due to construction, so by the time I got there he'd already finished the long jump and ran in the 4X100 relay. His long jump was his best this year, but not his best ever. He was happy though: "I finally got my technique back." I got to see him in the triple jump and also run the first leg of the 4X400 relay. He had a good TJ and ran his best 400 time ever. If I remember right, he got 8th in the long jump and 6th in the TJ. If he'd jumped at or near his best in both events he probably would have come in 2nd in the TJ and 3rd or 4th in the LJ. So right now he's motivated to work on those events over the summer. The meet was sponsored by West Valley HS in Hemet, and they did a terrific job. It was incredibly hot, but they ran the events quickly and the meet was over by 12:30pm - often these meets go until mid to late afternoon. As I drove away I saw a sign saying the temperature was 95 degrees.

From there it was down to Escondido to see if I could catch the last couple hours of our presbytery meeting. They usually go until 3 or 4pm. I got to the church at about 2pm, and the parking lot was almost empty. I called a friend, already on his way up the freeway back home, who said they finished before 2pm. That's pretty unusual, but apparently there wasn't much business to conduct. The MNA Committee, which has oversight of church planting, did report to presbytery about my "preliminary proposal" to do a new church plant in north OC. That's pretty cool. God willing I will meet with them in July, while also continuing to talk with the session at my church. So, all that driving only to miss presbytery, but that's OK.

To back up a bit, on Friday during lunch I looked at a potential place for the new church plant to meet. The father of a co-worker owns some commercial property on Imperial Highway in La Habra. While we won't need it until much later this year, it would be a very good place to start a new church. They can't hold it for us, but if it doesn't rent out between now and then it could be ours. Very exciting!

Saturday night was supposed to be the annual dinner auction for Half Pint's school. But Tia, her sitter, got sick and had to go home. So I stayed with Half Pint while KMR went to the dinner. Half Pint is not as into Little House on the Prairie as she used to be. Lately it's been DVD's of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. She also likes the Robin Hood series on BBC America. So we're hanging on the couch and flipping through the channel guide and what's on? The classic Robin Hood movie with Errol Flynn. Of course we watched it. After that they had several Robin Hood movie versions, which we recorded on the DVR.

Then Sunday morning we got up early and went out to Palm Desert to visit Providence Presbyterian Church (see at right), and our friends Clayton and Kristi Willis. We hadn't been out there in quite a while, so it was good to see them and the other people at the church. We've been visiting regularly since they started just over 4 years ago, but much less often recently. Clayton preached a very good sermon on Ephesians 2:1-2. It's a small congregation, but maturing strongly in Christ and the Word. If you know anyone who lives out that way, point them to PPC.

Today it's back to work, and then down to Escondido again for class. This may be my last drive down there to attend class, although we may decide to meet for two more weeks. It's hard to believe seminary is almost over.

Many miles and a very busy weekend. But, as I said above, very fun.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Martin at 7:10 AM | | Comments

Thursday, April 26, 2007

PCA Committee Report on Federal Vision, New Perspective

The PCA study committee commissioned by last year's General Assembly to study and write a report on the Federal Vision (aka Auburn Avenue) Theology and New Perspective on Paul has released its report. The committee comes to nine conclusions and five recommendations that it is asking this year's General Assembly to adopt.

I've seen some less than enthusiastic reaction to the report among some in the blogosphere who are opponents of FV and NPP. These folks view the report as not strong enough in its language or proposals. Overall, though, I think the committee did a fine job.

There are a few things worth remembering:
  • Committees don't judge cases. The committee was commissioned to study FV and NPP and give its recommendations to GA. This they have done.
  • Ultimately it is up to each presbytery to handle judicial cases - if necessary - in regard to teaching elders who hold to FV or NPP doctrines. And it is up to each session to do so in regard to ruling elders.
  • More than that, though, I believe the report (assuming it is adopted essentially as is by GA) calls on TE's and RE's to be faithful to their vows. In particular, men are required to have the good conscience to report themselves if they find they have adopted views out of accord with the Westminster Standards. Again assuming the report is adopted, it will be the "official" statement of the PCA regarding FV and NPP, and as such, any men who hold to these views in the PCA will be honor bound to report themselves. I believe the committee's report is giving them this opportunity. Also, elders vow to uphold the peace and purity of the church. To report themselves, and to submit to the correction or discipline required by session or presbytery, is to uphold the peace and purity of the church. For some (or perhaps many; I hope not) this may mean they will need to leave the PCA peaceably.

This kind of scenario and outcome probably doesn't satisfy the more rabid folks who are looking for red meat. But it is presbyterian. God forbid that it should be so, but given our sinful nature I don't doubt that there will be FV/NPP adherents who refuse to submit, messy trials will then result, and they may have to be forced out of the PCA. That may satisfy the rabid folks. But it shouldn't.

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 7:06 AM | | Comments

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Why Do Birds Sing?

Yesterday morning when the alarm went off, I laid there trying to decide whether or not I should snooze for another few minutes. Outside our bedroom window is a large tree. From its branches I could easily and clearly hear the song of one little bird. It was quite beautiful, and much more pleasant to wake up to than the bleating of an alarm clock.

This morning the tree had a choir of birds heartily singing away. And while I knew from the different songs that there had to be at least three or four different kinds of birds going at it, each kind with its different song, their combined song did not clash, but was again quite beautiful.

It made me think about why birds sing.

If you watch Animal Planet or other nature shows, birds sing to attract a mate, or to outline and defend their territory. Maybe for some birds singing is also a primitive form of communication: "Hey, there's a cat skulking up - beware!" or "Check this out, lazy boy filled the bird feeder - it's chow time!"

In the mechanistic world of modern science, something as utterly lovely as a bird's song is reduced to the merely utilitarian. It's not enough that birds sing. Science can't justify it unless it serves some purpose.

But the reality of the world that God created is this: He created it good. Very good. Yes, it is fallen and suffers terribly under the curse of the Fall. But there are things in this life, things in this world, that are beautiful for no other reason than that's the way God created them to be.

God tells us in Philippians 4:8, through Paul:
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
When was the last time you simply sat and thought about, really deeply contemplated, let your mind dwell upon, the kinds of things in the list above?

Think about it!

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 7:13 AM | | Comments

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Trusting God in the Mundane & Practical

Lately I've been reading through the Pastoral Epistles, thinking that they would be a good resource for developing a biblical view of how to start and lead a new church plant. It turns out a friend has been reading them, too, and made the comment that it's interesting how there's really nothing in I & II Timothy or Titus about raising money, renting a facility, advertizing the new church, etc. Paul's concerns are spiritual and very relational. This observation is right on and well worth remembering.

It struck me this morning, in thinking about his observation, that this is pretty much true of the entire Bible. There are no practical instructions for how to sow barley, tend the fields as it grows, harvest it, thresh out the grain, or mill it into flour. I think this is for two reasons.

Firstly, God knows that we know how to do these mundane and practical things. They are part of what is common to men, whether they are God's people or not. The Bible isn't concerned so much about these kinds of things. So, secondly, the Bible focuses on the spiritual. What does the believing barley farmer do that the pagan barley farmer doesn't? He trusts in God. He sows, tends, reaps, threshes and mills in faith. He knows that it is God who causes the rain to fall and the sun to shine. He knows that it is God who will provide for his needs in whatever circumstance of life, rain or shine, or lack thereof. But that doesn't make him lazy. He still sows, tends, reaps, threshes and mills, and he does it to the best of his ability. This glorifies God and shows the farmer's faith in Him and thanks to Him.

The same principle applies to church planting. We know, in today's society, that we need a place to meet, there are certain costs involved in "doing" church, and that we need to plan wisely for these things. But this is not where our hope lies. Our hope and trust is with God, that He will raise up Christ's Church. So Paul in the Pastoral Epistles focuses on the spiritual attitudes, characteristics, habits and disciplines a biblical church ought to have. We need to wisely, prayerfully, and in faith do those practical and mundane things that are necessary, and we also need to wisely, prayerfully and in faith follow after God's wisdom for us given to us through Paul in his instructions to Timothy and Titus, and that wisdom that reveals the ordinary means of grace - God's Word, prayer, the sacraments, etc. - that God has given us for the health and true growth of the body of Christ.

Labels: ,

Posted by Martin at 7:14 AM | | Comments

Friday, February 23, 2007

Aaah, Baseball!

Now that pitchers and catchers have reported, I'm reminded of something Half Pint told me a few weeks ago. She said the months of the year go like this: January, February, March, Baseball.

She's getting it!

Of course, more die hard fans see the year something like this: January, Pitchers & Catchers, Spring Training, Baseball, All Star Game, More Baseball, World Series, Free Agent Deadline, Winter Meetings.

This story about the mystery gyroball pitch at Yahoo! Sports is the kind of story that illustrates why baseball is the greatest sport. As fun as they are and as much as I enjoy them, football, basketball, soccer, or any other sport would never have a similar story.

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 7:16 AM | | Comments

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Scripture as a Necessary Evil?

That's the surprising contention Heiko Oberman makes in his wonderful biography of Martin Luther. Thinking about the post below reminded me of a couple paragraphs in the book where Oberman describes Luther's view of Scripture and how it impacted the Reformation:

...The Reformation reached the people because of a surprising conclusion Luther drew from the scriptural principle he had known for so long: the Scriptures must be preached! Because heresies threatened the living apostolic message, it had to be recorded in a book to protect it from falsification. Preaching reverses this process of conservation again, allowing the Scriptures of the past to become the tidings of the present.

So the Bible is a necessary evil! It is necessary because without it man's spirit will claim to be holy and there will be no way of proving him wrong. Scripture becomes "evil" when, as a hollow pontifical document, it petrifies in holiness instead of being publicly proclaimed in the Church as the living Word. The Gospel has been committed to lifeless paper; fresh words can transform it into glad tidings again.

Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, pp. 173-174
There is a lot that is provocative in those two paragraphs.

But what is especially striking to me is the last sentence. We hear a lot about how important the printing press was to the spread of the Protestant Reformation and the ideas written down on paper by Luther and others, and then copied all over Europe. This is no doubt true.

Nevertheless, I think Oberman is right in ascribing much of the "energy" behind the Reformation to the preaching of the Word. Men, some supremely gifted by the Spirit and some just determined to preach Christ and whose names we'll probably never know, opened up God's Word to a world of dead, dry bones and the Spirit took that preached Word and brought those bones to life. The "fresh words" of the preachers proclaimed the living Word, and it did not return to God empty, but instead accomplished a truly great thing in bringing true revival to so much of Europe.

Today we get all excited about the internet and its remakable ability to communicate with people, and the amazing avenues of communication that are opened up to regular folks (like me!). Some churches are all energized about the latest sound and video equipment in their services, drama presentations and "relevant" music.

The internet truly is an incredible tool, and I think it has and will have a positive impact. But neither it nor AV equipment nor drama nor music nor Powerpoint and movie clips can replace the simple, yet powerful, preaching of God's Word.

I hope and pray that the current mini-revival of Reformed theology is not merely an intellectual recovery of these Biblical truths (with the Bible as an "evil," hollow theological document?), but that it is the kind of movement like that of almost 500 years ago, where faithful preachers captured the exciting, amazing, saving grace of the Word and through such ordinary means the Spirit brought new life to a dying world.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Martin at 11:14 PM | | Comments

Humble Orthodoxy

In re-reading the Christianity Today article on the new young Reformed movement I was struck - again - by the last two paragraphs.

Joshua Harris - the author of I Kissed Dating Goodbye and now a pastor - is quoted in those paragraphs. Harris describes his Reformed views as a "humble orthodoxy" and is described by the author as someone who "reluctantly debates doctrine, but he passionately studies Scripture and seeks to apply all its truth." And then the final paragraph:

"If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, 'It's unbelieveable. Why would God choose any of us?'" Harris said. "You are so amazed by grace, you're not picking a fight with anyone, you're just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn't have to save anybody."
Harris' point of view resonates strongly with me. I'm not so keen on debate myself, but do love to discuss theology. It's not that theology shouldn't be debated, but I've realized I'm not the best guy for that task. I'm very thankful for men like the faculty at Westminster Seminary in California who are willing to stand firm for the truths of the Reformed faith. I'm also very thankful for the various men on sessions, in presbytery, or at General Assembly who have the giftedness to understand the intricacies of church polity and make sure we do it right.

My joy - what gets me energized - is teaching and hopefully someday regularly preaching the truths of God's Word, and helping people understand the truly amazing grace that is revealed to us in the work of salvation accomplished for us by God in Christ through the work of the Spirit.

Labels: ,

Posted by Martin at 10:53 PM | | Comments

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Wonderful World of Birds

I came across a great website today. Mangoverde has a World Bird Guide with photos, videos and sound recordings of birds from all around the world.

Today's photo on my page-a-day bird calendar had a group of steamerducks, which the caption said are flightless. I'd never heard of flightless ducks before, so did a search and found the Mangoverde site. Not only did I find out about steamerducks, but learned that there is a group of birds called flowerpeckers. Now woodpeckers I've heard of (and seen a few), but flowerpeckers is a new one.

Here are a couple photos I copied from the site:


This one seems to be caught in the act of flowerpecking...


This one is remarkably colorful.

There are many more great photos there; the site also has a dragonfly/damselfly page and a butterfly page, both also with many photos, if you prefer colorful flying insects.

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 10:50 PM | | Comments

Friday, February 02, 2007

Apologetics and Green Beer

The following is from a paper I wrote for one of my first classes at Westminster Seminary. Fun with apologetics...

The Curious Question of the Tainted Beverage
Or
Jesus as a Green Beer

In the rural countryside of Sussex, Mr. Sherlock Holmes had retired himself to beekeeping. After some time his faithful friend Dr. Watson had given over his medical practice to a partner, joining his friend in Sussex. No longer occupied with cataloging the exploits of the great detective, Watson had taken up the study of metaphysics. In the end even the aging Mrs. Hudson, their onetime landlord, finally acknowledged that she missed her former tenants (and they too acknowledged the same for her), and sold the famous residence on Baker Street, joining Holmes and Watson in Sussex. By now she was rather old and eccentric, so the housekeeping was left to younger hands, while Mrs. Hudson took up a rather curious hobby: brewing her own beer.

On a fine Spring morning sometime in the midst of the fourth decade of the new century, Mrs. Hudson found Dr. Watson devouring books on metaphysics in the study of their rural estate. She brought with her a large pitcher of beer and two mugs.

Watson: Why, Mrs. Hudson, this must be your latest creation!
Mrs. Hudson: So it is, so it is. I’m hoping you and Mr. Holmes will give me the courtesy of your opinion.
Watson: And so we shall. I’m expecting him in from inspecting his hives any moment.

Mrs. Hudson carefully set her offering on a table between the two men’s favorite reading chairs and hurriedly left the room. Though she was fond of Mr. Holmes, his unpredictable behavior still somewhat frightened her, and she was uncertain of the reaction her latest concoction would evoke.

Holmes: (bursting in) My dear Watson, what a glorious day! My bees are fairly abuzz. This latest spate of warm weather has shaken off the doldrums. What’s this? I see that Mrs. Hudson has been a-brewing. What a curious color, though.
Watson: Yes! I say, it is a fair shocking shade of green at that. But, tell me Holmes, how did you know that Mrs. Watson brewed this beer?
Holmes: Come now, Watson. You know my methods. Of course I deduced it from the evidence!
Watson: But my dear Holmes, how do you know that Mrs. Hudson is the creator of this beer. I contend you only have a probable knowledge, and the only way to truly know she brewed this beer is to pre-suppose Mrs. Hudson.
Holmes: I see your purpose, old friend. You’re trying to draw me into a debate of that new metaphysics you’ve been reading from across the Pond. Who’s the author again?
Watson: Van Til. He’s still young, but he shows great promise. Listen, what better way to spend a splendid Spring day than to sharpen the mind with a good debate? What say you?
Holmes: I say I’ve never been fond of metaphysics. But my bees have enlivened me. Let us have to. The game is afoot!
Watson: Shall we use an analogy? Mrs. Hudson shall be our analogue for God; her abnormally colored beer an analogue for God’s revelation.
Holmes: Again I see your purpose, old man. I shall acquiesce for now, while asserting that God – pardon, Mrs. Hudson -- must communicate to us in real facts. Otherwise we can’t really know anything about Him. And the real facts are these: Mrs. Hudson brews beer; I know from past experience that her efforts often produce odd results; it is highly unlikely any local brewer would produce such an odd concoction. From these simple facts I can readily deduce that Mrs. Hudson made this green potable.
Watson: My dear Holmes, you’ve just bolstered my own argument. Using phrases like “highly unlikely” doesn’t make a very certain case, ultimately. But before we discuss the beer in question I think we need to be clear about Mrs. Hudson.
Holmes: Mrs. Hudson has left behind a littered trail of clues by which and with which we can reason. Let us use that reason. Would you like me to list more clues?
Watson: Thanks all the same. Perhaps later. First let me clarify: we are not the same as Mrs. Hudson – we’ve got to maintain the woman-man distinction. Men and women just think differently! Admittedly however, Mrs. Hudson is rational and knowable in some ways, so we can’t treat her as something utterly different than we men. So our thinking is like hers in some sense. If Mrs. Hudson is God, and we are her creatures, then our knowledge of her is created as well. So, the only way to reason that makes sense is by analogy. We must submit our knowledge of the green beer to hers. She knows that she made it. Only because she knows are we also able to know.
Holmes: Watson, you know my opinions of women! But the simple truth is that no matter how different she is, Mrs. Hudson must communicate intelligible facts to us. We are the ones who must reason using those facts.
Watson: Remember that in our analogy Mrs. Hudson is God. Your approach amounts to sitting in judgement of God. My approach maintains Mrs. Hudson’s sovereignty. Mrs. Hudson made and knows perfectly and completely everything about this beer. Only by presupposing her existence and her knowledge of the beer can we really know anything about the beer and, ultimately, Mrs. Hudson.
Holmes: You’re making a capital mistake. You can’t theorize about something before you have the data. Your approach amounts to circular reasoning. We must start with the facts and our ability to reason from them. Even if you “presuppose” Mrs. Hudson, you are still the one making the decision to believe or not believe in her existence, much less the existence of any green beer she’s brewed.
Watson: I don’t deny that I’m the one who has to make a decision. What I’m saying is that Mrs. Hudson’s knowledge is the ultimate criterion of truth regarding this beer. We can’t use our criteria or – I emphasize again – we set ourselves up as judges of God. That is simply unacceptable.
Holmes: I don’t deny that Mrs. Hudson’s criteria – whatever they are – are ultimate. But remember you’ve said that Mrs. Hudson is different enough from us that we have to think about her by analogy. That’s not adequate, and it is a fatal flaw. Look, she knows everything there is to know about this beer right?
Watson: Perfectly.
Holmes: And we must think like her in some analogical manner, correct?
Watson: Precisely. We must think our thoughts after her, according to her way of thinking.
Holmes: That’s all well and good, but practically it makes no sense. As soon as we think thoughts “after” someone, we move from analogical to univocal thinking. In other words, there must be points of connection in her and our thinking. That connection is reason and logic. So when I use reason and logic I use the God-given tools for reason. Since they are God-given then I am using His criteria for judging anything, including green beer.
Watson: You’re making progress, but there’s still a problem. You still need a standard by which to judge your use of reason and logic. That standard can only be Mrs. Hudson. It’s her beer. Or, analogously, it’s God’s world.
Holmes: But I can’t make Mrs. Hudson the supreme standard if I don’t know her – which you’ve asserted I can’t. Therefore I must use some other standard. Metaphysically, that would be something like the law of non-contradiction. It’s universal. For this beer I fall back on the standby of elementary deduction: eliminate all possibilities but one, and the one that remains, no matter how implausible, must be the truth.
Watson: Since you’ve brought up metaphysics, let me introduce God’s own revelation. Your approach violates the teaching in Romans 1, verses 18 through 21, that everyone knows God already. It also violates the teaching in 1 Corinthians 10, verse 31. There we learn that everything must be done to the glory of God. Using your standby of deduction or even the law of non-contradiction fails to do that.
Holmes: You still haven’t answered my accusation of circular reasoning.
Watson: It’s quite simple, really. Certainly some circular reasoning is faulty. One cannot say that the Bible is God’s Word because it says it is God’s Word. But one can claim that evidence understood according to God’s criteria shows the divine authority of Scripture. Ultimately all forms of reasoning amount to such a broad circle. Take logic. Data interpreted according to the overall rules of logic demonstrate the validity of logical thinking.
Holmes: That’s very clever, but really begs the question --

At that moment Chauncey their gardener entered the room with a bouquet of freshly cut flowers. Though a talented gardener, Chauncey was a bit dim, and moved to place his bouquet in the still full pitcher of green beer.

Watson: Hold, man! Can’t you see what that is? You can’t put flowers in there!
Chauncey: Oh dear, I’m very sorry, sir! Why not?
Holmes: (motioning to Watson that he had a plan) Don’t you know what that is?
Chauncey: No, but it is very pretty.
Watson: Holmes, are you suggesting what I think – that we should witness to this dear fellow?
Holmes: (as Chauncey wandered to a far corner looking for a more suitable vase) Exactly! Why not take this silly analogy a step further. Here we have, in Chauncey, an unbeliever. How do you propose to convince him that Mrs. Hudson brewed this beer?
Watson: Chauncey knows that Mrs. Hudson brewed this beer. He’s just suppressing the truth. He must be confronted with the truth and his own rebellious suppression of it. What’s your proposal?
Holmes: Simply present the evidence, and reason with him toward the truth. Do not the same Scriptures you’ve quoted say, “Come let us reason together?” This is what I propose to do, in all obedience.
Watson: You can’t appeal to his reason. He is using his reason to suppress the truth. That’s what Romans 1 is all about.
Holmes: I respectfully disagree. His reason is intact. In fact, his reason is a remnant of the image of God left after the Fall. The problem is that he isn’t using it properly. My job is to reason with him, properly.
Watson: That denies the doctrine of total depravity – or at best it’s a weak doctrine of total depravity. The Fall has corrupted him through and through. Every aspect of his thought and life is dedicated to resisting God.
Holmes: I’m not denying total depravity at all. You’re simply asserting your own definition. Total depravity affects the heart, the will. The mind is certainly wicked due to the depravity of the heart, but it is still capable of reasoning soundly. I simply need to state the brute facts and use reason to show that this green beer was brewed by Mrs. Hudson.
Watson: Ah, yes – “brute facts.” In what foreign world do these exist? There are no such things as brute facts. Merely stating a fact is an interpretation of that fact. Saying, “this beer is green” is an interpretation of “beer” and “green” at the very least.
Holmes: Watson, you amaze me. And after all those years together gathering clues and observing my methods. Do you think we could ever have seen any criminal convicted if facts were so subjective?
Watson: I’m not saying that there aren’t objective facts. What I am saying is that the only legitimate interpreter of facts is God. The only legitimate interpretation of the facts regarding this pitcher of green beer is the one in Mrs. Hudson’s mind. We’re back at criteria again. You simply can’t start with some set of “neutral” facts and use those to reason toward God. Rather, we must reason from God’s mind to what He has revealed to how that revelation speaks to us, inevitably, about the existence of God. Chauncey is bringing a set of ultimate heart commitments about the world – his presuppositions – to any interpretation of the evidence surrounding Mrs. Hudson’s green beer. These presuppositions must be dealt with.
Holmes: You’re falling into subjectivism. Why in the world should Chauncey exchange his presuppositions for yours? In your own way you’re making man the judge of God. You’re denying the objective truth that exists in a set of facts. Mrs. Hudson’s beer is green not because of any presuppositions about “beer” or “green.” The beer is green because the beer is green.
Watson: Are you denying that Chauncey has presuppositions that affect his thinking?
Holmes: No. But the solution is not to exchange one set of presuppositions for another. Rather, by reason Chauncey must be called upon to abandon his presuppositions and use reason as the starting point in his search for truth about this mysterious green liquid that he sees. Romans 1 tells us that what may be known about God is made plain. Therefore by this evidence and reason we can know God. This isn’t a presupposition, it is a conclusion.
Watson: That what may be known about God is made plain is true simply because God is a self-attesting God. He has graciously made Himself known through His revelation. This doesn’t imply reason from facts. The knowledge is made self-evident by a God who speaks to us about Himself in His revelation.
Holmes: That’s a nice theory but, again, what practical use is it? Chauncey’s mind still has to function, use some sort of reasoning capacity, to see God in His revelation. Of course I acknowledge that God must reveal Himself to us in order for us to know Him. His revelation appeals to our capacity to reason about His revelation.
Watson: That’s why we have the Holy Spirit. He testifies inwardly of the self-attesting God.
Holmes: Where’s the Holy Spirit in your green beer analogy?
Watson: Let’s not go there.
Chauncey: (wandering back and eyeing the green beer suspiciously) I’m thirsty.
Watson: The point is that our dear Chauncey here cannot truly know anything without the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Holmes: Are you saying then that only Christians have true knowledge, since only they possess the Holy Spirit?
Watson: Absolutely not. Certainly unbelievers know some things truly, but that is largely a happy inconsistency, or an accident, in their thinking.
Holmes: I think you have a peculiar understanding of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit imparts to all men an ability to understand some truth, for example the basic truths of Scripture. But only to Christians is given a knowledge that leads to salvation. Once again you’re sounding awfully subjective in your approach, Watson.
Watson: And you still sound as if you are rejecting the clear teaching of Romans 1, that men like Chauncey willingly suppress the truth with every ounce of their being.
Chauncey: I’m really thirsty! Just a drop or two would quench the parch.
Holmes: So, where does this leave us? I don’t think we’ve really resolved our little debate.
Chauncey: Begging your pardon, gentlemen, but would you have anything to drink?
Watson: I think you are suppressing the truth, Holmes!
Holmes: Watson, you see but you do not observe!
Mrs. Hudson: (returning in hopes of a verdict on her latest brew) What’s this? You two have sat here all morning and not had a drop! What’s that Chauncey?
Chauncey: I’m really very thirsty!
Mrs. Hudson: (pouring Chauncey a mug full of green beer) Here, drink this.
Chauncey: What is it?
Mrs. Hudson: Beer. It’s got a funny greenish tint to it, but beer nonetheless. Brewed it myself!
Chauncey: (draining his mug in one swig) Aaaah!!!
Watson & Holmes: (in unison) See, I told you!!!

Posted by Martin at 8:36 PM | | Comments

Harry Potter 7 Publication Date

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is scheduled to come out on July 21, it was recently announced. I admit to being very anxious to read the last book in the series. Patience...patience...

For all you fans out there also waiting, or for those of you curious about this book selling phenomenon, HogwartsProfessor John Granger has a very interesting web site where he discusses the literary characteristics of the Harry Potter series, and argues that the author, J. K. Rowling, uses powerful Christian symbols (not allegory) in the books.

At least it'll keep you occupied until Deathly Hallows comes out.

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 7:58 PM | | Comments

Ancient Hymns

I was in a local bookstore the other day looking to pick up a couple books I need for seminary this semester. Didn't find them, but the store also has a pretty good section of used books, where I found something titled, Earliest Christian Hymns.

Since I love hymns (I have a collection of hymnbooks) and early church history I bought the book.

It starts out with examples of hymns or poetic texts from the New Testament, and then has chapters on everything from Gnostic hymns (ugh!) to early hymns from the Greek and Latin fathers.

Here's a nice, simple hymn by Prudentius:

The clouds, the shadows, and the night
Long held in gloom both earth and sky,
Light enters, and the heavens grow bright,
Christ comes, and lo, the shadows fly.

The blinding fog is pierced amain,
By shining arrows of the sun,
Earth's golden rays return again,
The glory of the morn is won.

The light is thine, O Christ! we see
Thy glory in the open day;
With tears and songs we come to thee;
Lift up and guide our souls, we pray.

Cleanse us from stain of sinful pride,
And warm us in thy living light;
Thou art our heavenly lamp, our guide;
Shine in thy sweetness, clear and bright.

To God the Father, glory be,
And equal glory to the Son,
The same, O Paraclete, to thee,
Forever reigning, three in one.

Labels: ,

Posted by Martin at 7:22 AM | | Comments

Thursday, February 01, 2007

What is faith?

Dr. Scott Clark over at The Heidelblog has a very, very, very, very, very, very important post on faith and how seriously the Federal Vision theology gets it wrong.

Read it.

Don't have time? Make time.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Martin at 11:11 AM | | Comments

Monday, January 29, 2007

Louisiana Presbytery Decision on Steve Wilkins

For those who are searching...

Louisiana Presbytery of the PCA recently posted the following on its web site:


On January 20, 2007, Louisiana Presbytery, exercising its authority and prerogative under BCO 31-2, passed the following motion pertaining to TE Steve Wilkins:

"Louisiana Presbytery, after thorough examination and investigation of TE Steve Wilkins as per the SJC directives regarding allegations made in the Central Carolina Presbytery Memorial, finds no strong presumption of guilt in any of the charges contained therein and exercises its prerogative not to institute process regarding those allegations." [Clerk's note: See BCO 31-2.]

"Grounds: See the written exam and oral exam of TE Steve Wilkins on December 9, 2006."

Personally I am not surprised by this decision, though admit I am disappointed.

I have no idea where this controversy will go from here, but will be surprised if it isn't a major issue at our General Assembly later this year.

I may write more later, but one quick thought: I don't understand why people whose views are (it seems to me) clearly out of alignment with historical Presbyterian doctrine would want to stay in a Presbyterian denomination. Why not leave peaceably? The PCA has no claim on their property. Why prolong the controversy, and how does doing so conform with the vow all elders take to uphold the peace and purity of the church? Baffling...




Labels: ,

Posted by Martin at 7:30 AM | | Comments

God's Grace

At Saturday's meeting of the South Coast Presbytery of the PCA I passed the licensure exam. This is a huge relief, something that's been a goal for many years.

Thanks to everyone, family and friends, who prayed and who lent so much encouragement to me during this process! What could have been a very stressful process actually went relatively smoothly - I was much calmer than I expected to be at least.

Yesterday during worship our pastor prayed a wonderful prayer of thanks, and for God's blessing over the next step at presbytery, which would be ordination.

But first things first: two more classes at Westminster and then, DV, graduation in June.

Though it has been a long process (I started seminary way back in 1998!!) KMR and I can look back and certainly see God's gracious hand in all that has happened.

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 7:21 AM | | Comments

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Trees, Comets and Tidepools

I'm fairly old-school in my view of Creation: relatively young earth, six literal, consecutive days, etc. I examined evolution fairly intently in college almost 20 years ago, back when I had to take a lot of science classes for my engineering major, and found it severely wanting. It's a really crummy theory. I haven't studied intelligent design all that much, but from what I have it's not that attractive to me, either, in the end. I wish someone would start with the biblical narrative as a base presupposition and test it. For example, if a world-wide flood really did happen, how did it impact things like continental drift, climate change leading to ice age, and the tilt of the earth? And a big part of the reason why I'm not attracted to anything other than the Genesis account is that when I go out and observe the world around us, it is just too amazing to be explained by these odd theories.

Recently I've had the opportunity to see some exciting things.

Not too long ago, Half Pint, Vikinglord and I went up to the Sequoias to see the biggest giant sequoia - in fact the biggest tree by volume - in the world, the General Sherman tree.



I've seen big, tall trees, having lived for over two years in the redwoods and visited there a few times since, including going through the famous drive-through tree. But the giant sequoias are simply astonishing. The base of the General Sherman tree above has a diameter bigger than the length of the condo we live in - sheesh! We also drove over to the grove, and went on a short hike, to see the General Grant tree.

There was some road construction while we were there, and for several minutes we had to wait while traffic going the other way went through the construction zone. As we were parked, people a couple cars ahead got out of their car and started pointing up the hill to our right. Curious, I got out to see what it was all about. Right there, no more than 20-25 feet away, were a couple deer, a decent sized buck with a doe. Taking pictures through the bushes and trees was a bit of a challenge, but I think you get a good view of the buck here:



Then a few days ago I went out on the river trail near our home to get a good view of the horizon at sunset. Why? Because one of the brightest comets in years is currently visible, Comet McNaught. I didn't take a picture of it, but if you add homes and trees to the horizon below, plus a little pale orange in the sky, this is pretty much what I saw:



When Comet Kahoutek was here back in the 1970's and was a big deal in the news, I didn't get to see it, though I did try. And Halley's was a bust when it came. So it was a real kick to look into the horizon and see with my naked eye a real comet. It was even better with binoculars, and I watched it slowly set into a couple palm trees.

Finally this past weekend there was a pretty good low tide so again Vikinglord, Half Pint and I went down to check out the tidepools. The day turned out to be perfect for finding tidepool critters. We saw a ton of hermit crabs, and a good number of little tidepool sculpin. My son found an octopus that at first looked like a small ray or flatfish pressed against a rock. This was after we saw a gull gulping down a dead octopus. The live octopus was cooler. There were all sorts of gulls and other shorebirds, including a few brown pelicans. The tide was low enough that hundreds of mussels were exposed. We found a starfish - sorry, "sea star" glommed in a hump on the side of a rock, probably enjoying a little mussel dinner. I was able to take one decent photo of a sea star, and tried to get one of a California sea hare, a type of sea slug that we saw several of.



All three of us are ready to go back; my son and I will probably make an effort to get down that way for more of the day to give us time to see the tidepools and go for a decent hike in the large state park nearby.

As we drove out, we got a good look at a Kestrel perched on a sign near the parking lot. Not exactly a common sight in Orange County.

These things exist by chance? No way. The variety of God's Creation is beyond imagining, and too vast for mere chance, and too wonderful a display of His greatness, power and love.

Labels: ,

Posted by Martin at 11:34 PM | | Comments

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

God Helps Those Who Help Themselves??

This morning I received an e-mail with the subject, "New Year, New You!" from a Christian retailer. Inside, the e-mail asked, "Wouldn't it be wonderful to look back and say '2007 was the year He made all things new'?"

Wow, that would be great. Now the sales pitch: "With motivational books, exercise music, devotionals, daily Bibles, and God on your side you can."

And, of course, the rest of the e-mail is an ad for diet books, exercise books, various one-year Bibles (packaged just for your particular need/want, of course!), and how-to-get-organized or how-to-manage-your-money books.

Look. It's real simple.

Either it's God who makes all things new OR it's you who makes yourself new with God alongside to help.

I'll take the former. After all, "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

And if I take the former then what's needed is not more spit and polish (with all due respect to Admiral Boom ***), self-help books, diets and exercise routines. What's needed is to let God work according to the means He chooses to work: His Word, prayer, the sacraments, and the accountability, discipline and fellowship of being among His people in a good, solid church.

Oh, but that doesn't sell many books....

---
***
Mary Poppins: Now, let me see. First of all, we must go to the piano tuners. And then we go to Mrs. Cory's sh-- Mrs. Cory's shop for some gingerbread.
Jane: Ah, gingerbread!
Mary Poppins: And then we go to the fishmonger's, I think, for a nice dover sole and a pint of prawns. Uh, Michael, stop stravaging along behind.
Admiral Boom: Ahoy, there! Ahoy! Good day to you!
Mary Poppins: Good morning, Admiral.
Admiral Boom: Michael, what fine adventure are we off upon today? Going to fight the Hottentots? Dig for buried treasure?
Michael: We're going to buy some fish.
Admiral Boom: Very good! Proceed at flank speed.
Michael: Aye, aye, sir.
Admiral Boom: Let's put our backs into it, lad. More spit and polish. That's what's wanted around here.

Posted by Martin at 8:22 AM | | Comments

Monday, January 08, 2007

PCA and Steve Wilkins Update

I seem to get a lot of search hits related to Pastor Steve Wilkins and the investigation into his doctrine by the PCA. Here are a couple updates for readers to look into:

Steve Wilkins' response to questions raised,

An analysis of that response.

When the first Auburn Avenue conference was held and there was an initial flurry of reaction to it, the whole thing struck me as a tempest in a teapot. It seemed like people were talking past each other, and that critics were finding error where none was intended.

However, when the second conference was held it became clear that there was significant error, and my conviction that it is error has only increased as I've continued to follow the controversy. I read all the papers presented at the Knox Seminary colloquiam, and have read much (but certainly not all) of what has been written since.

What bothers me about this are two things. One is that, while I am very sympathetic to many of the concerns raised by the Federal Vision people I wish they could see that the answers to their questions are in our Reformed confessions and creeds already. Reformed theology already addresses their concerns, and doesn't need to be changed. This leads to the second concern, that in trying to "reform" Reformed theology they have changed it into something which it is not, and have created a theological system that is - in my very humble opinion - anti-biblical.

In addition, I am baffled that people who believe something different than what the Westminster Standards teach would want to continue to maintain that they are faithful to that teaching, and remain in a denomination that holds to those standards. But then I remember my church history, and that this seems to be the consistent M.O. of those who teach error. They try to argue that they are orthodox, outwardly affirm their agreement with creeds or confessions of faith, and then teach that which is contrary to those standards.

Labels: ,

Posted by Martin at 7:32 AM | | Comments

Holiday Spirits

The span between Thanksgiving and New Year's is one of my favorite times of the year. I actually like to go gift shopping, and of course love all the food and presents and bowl games and Christmas TV specials and everything else. It all seems to climax in the week between Christmas and New Year's, a week we have typically spent in Seattle with my family, and engaging in a whirlwind of visits with extended family and friends.

This year we stayed home. Our two oldest daughters have to work, and we thought it would be good for us all to be in one place and be able to see each other.

It made the holidays quieter and less hectic, but they were also very satisfying. I realize looking back how thankful I am for my family. I have been blessed with a wonderful wife who is a helper more than suitable for me, and four wonderful children who are a true joy.

So despite all the shopping and eating and gift giving and gift receiving, what stands out for me this year is how blessed I am and how thankful I am for the family God has given me.

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 7:24 AM | | Comments

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

Well, a few anyway...

The new Blogger set-up includes "labels" - categories in other blogging software. So I've updated the site with labels. Scroll down the sidebar on the right to see an alphabetical listing; click on one to see posts with that label.

I also added another link to the "daily constitutional," the Heidelblog, which is written by one of my seminary profs, Scott Clark. Check it out.

In the meantime, God willing, more to come.

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 11:34 PM | | Comments

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Mary Did You Know....?

"Mary Did You Know?" is a popular contemporary Christmas song that is heard more and more in Evangelical Christian circles. It's melody is quite pretty and compelling. The lyrics also ask a series of poignant questions, wondering if Mary knew just who this little boy of hers was.

Did she know her son would save our sons and daughters? Did she know this boy that she delivered would one day deliver her? Did she know that her son would perform all sorts of miracles? Did she know that when she kissed his face she kissed God? Did she know that he was Lord of all creation, ruler of the nations, the great "I am?"

Part of the reason for the poignancy of the lyrics, I think, is due to the underlying assumption with which they were written and are sung: that Mary didn't know. And isn't that ironic? Isn't it touching?

But what does the Bible tell us about Jesus' birth and what Mary knew or didn't know?

When Gabriel came to Mary to tell her that she would give birth to a son by the power of the Holy Spirit, he also told her that this son would be the Son of the Most High, would sit on the throne of his father David, that his kingdom would never end, that he would be a holy one and the Son of God (see Luke 1:26-38).

Mary's betrothed Joseph was told by an angel to take Mary as his wife because the son she would bear was from the Holy Spirit and was to be named Jesus since he would save his people from their sins (see Matt. 2:20-21). Joseph must surely have told Mary about this.

When Mary went to visit her cousin, Elizabeth wondered why she was so favored to receive a visit from the mother of her Lord (see Luke 1:43), language reserved for God.

Mary's response was to praise God, glorifying the Lord and rejoicing in God her Savior (see Luke 1:46-55 for Mary's wonderful song of praise).

The shepherds who came to visit the newborn Jesus had been told by the angel who visited them that this child was their savior, Christ the Lord (see Luke 2:5-12). I'm sure they told Mary and Joseph about this.

When Jesus was taken to the Temple for the proper rites, the man Simeon took the boy in his arms and filled with the Holy Spirit thanked God for allowing him to see God's promised salvation (see Luke 2:25-32).

It is true that Mary and Joseph marveled at the things said about their son (Luke 2:33). But I think it is also true that because of the things said to them they knew who he was.

To answer the question of the song: did Mary know?

Yeah. She knew.

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 7:07 AM | | Comments

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Christmas Carol

Here's something I wrote back when Vikinglord was about 2 months old:


He sleeps so still,
This Child, this Night,
Beneath a starlit veil of sky.
The mother sheds her hears of joy;
The father loves his newborn boy.
While high above shines that one star,
Guiding those who travel far
To see the One who sleeps so still.

He sleeps so still,
This Child, this Night,
As shepherds watching hear the cry:
"Behold! To you a child is born!
You shall find him in the morn
Wrapped in cloths in manger mean.
Go now shepherds to the scene
And worship Him who sleeps so still."

He sleeps so still,
This Child, this Night,
As wise men keep their vigil nigh.
They saw the star in far off lands
And followed it in caravans
With gifts of gold, incense and myrrh.
Such princely treasures to confer
Upon a babe who sleeps so still!

He sleeps so still,
This Child, this Night,
Who for mankind one day will die.
What child is this who trembles not
At this - a dark and frightful thought?
Whose face in sleeping peacefulness
Begs for a mother's gentle kiss?
The Christ!, 'tis He who sleeps so still!

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 8:36 AM | | Comments

Thursday, December 07, 2006

RUF Back at Brown University

It's a little stale, but I heard the news yesterday that the RUF ministry at Brown University is being allowed back on campus. This is great news. Thanks to Dr. Clark for the info.

Labels:

Posted by Martin at 9:34 AM | | Comments

About me

  • Martin
  • From Orange, CA
  • Husband; Father; Son; Brother. Ruling elder at church. Loan Officer for Christian lending institution. Seminary student. I hope to be a pastor and plant a church in the near future.
My profile
What's Musings of a Bystander?
[ E-Mail Me ]
[ Sign My Guestbook ]

Links

Last posts

Archives

Search


Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]
Powered by Blogger
& Blogger Templates