We were watching a video Sunday night about family discipleship from the Vision Forum conference on building a multi-generation (200 year) vision for our family. I stole the idea from there, but we discussed books that have shaped my life and I decided to list and share those here on the blog.
Chosen by God by Dr. R. C. Sproul: This book helped explain the doctrine of election to me as I struggled through it being raised in a family and denomination that does not believe or teach election or predestination. I use Paul the Apostle and Jonah as examples as they chose different paths than what God wanted, but in the end they followed His will.
Refuting Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati: This book came at a critical time, my first real challenge of my faith by a co-worker who questioned that anyone could believe a book 2000 years old and we know so much more from science today. I had never thought about it at all, and sought out the truth. Another co-worker guided me to Answers in Genesis where this book was being featured being recently published. I couldn’t believe how little real data evolution was based on. I ended up teaching it in our church’s adult Sunday School classes. I couldn’t get enough information; I read as many books I could get on the topic (15 during the 12-week course).
A few others shaped me in more minor ways around creation and science. The Puzzle of Ancient Man by Dr. Donald Chittick helped me see this in archeology as well and opened my eyes to the concept that man’s intelligence is devolving (capacity and ability – not technology) rather than evolving. Bones of Contention by Dr. Marvin Lubenow helped me understand that man has a great ability to categorize and create a natural progression based on taxonomy where there is none. And finally, Dismantling the Big Bang by Dr. John Hartnett helped me see the incredible power of predictions in science and did a thorough job of breaking down the concepts and evidence surrounding astronomy and the Big Bang.
Ideas Have Consequences by Dr. R. C. Sproul: This book helped open my eyes to philosophy and the four causes. It also helped me see that two equally brilliant men can come to complete opposite conclusions; the difference is not in their intelligence, but in where they started. Presuppositions change a lot.
Dominion and Common Grace by Dr. Gary North: This book was when I really understood the dominion mandate both broadly and with depth. I began to see my responsibility as a man on this earth and began seeing areas everywhere, where I needed to take dominion, or others did.
Before that, my former pastor Al Bandstra shoved me into dominion in my family with his Father’s Day sermon on Jonadab. This was a turning point for me, and was built on by further lectures and materials by Doug Philips of Vision Forum and by Scott Brown and others with NCFIC. This shaping is still happening and I need to do more reading and applying.
What Hollywood Teaches about Manhood by Dr. Voddie Baucham: This is actually a lecture on CD that does a wonderful job of explaining Biblical Manhood and illustrating the contrasts as seen through several Hollywood movies. This is a CD that I have listened to and been encouraged by several times, I never get tired of it and it spurs me on and reminds me of my Biblical responsibility in my family and my work. There are many other lectures by Voddie Baucham that have been excellent and influential as well.
Besides those, I have been influenced by several people, especially my family, on a regular basis. This is largely my own family, wife and two boys, but also my extended family on both my side and my wife’s. There were many other books that had some influence, but these were the ones that shaped my thinking and I still recall today.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Always Reforming
Several years ago, as I was participating in an online
forum, I ran into the phrase, “once
reformed, always reforming.” Looking back, I see that what was meant was simply,
“always changing.” Since then, I’ve heard and seen this phrase used a number of
other times. It was mostly being used to support some kind of “change” in the
church or in theology. Those changes weren’t always for the better though, nor
were they always more Biblical. I also ran into a definition used by a 3rd-party
HR organization which stated that “reform” was any change for the positive. I found the best definition and a good Christian application in a lecture
at a conference titled, “Semper Reformanda” (see here.
Since then, I began hearing a number of other “re” terms used among Christians. These often sounded nice, but didn’t always reflect a change in the right direction. Here’s a quick list and explanation of these, and I’ll circle back around to “reforming” at the end to properly understand reformation. Change is a good thing, if it’s the right kind of change and if it’s not done just for the sake of change. Let’s take a look at a couple of these.
Renewal: Many look at church and worship as just needing some renewal or to refresh it so it comes alive for those who participate. The CRCNA has taken this approach by establishing the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship and focusing on worship renewal. This seems to assume that people have just become bored and need a constant barrage of newness in order to keep us interested. It assumes people need to be attracted to church through what we, as humans, do in our programs, music, etc… rather than being attracted by “the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” that has been preached since the time of the apostles. (1 Timothy 1:3-11) Even if the words are not used, this is the underlying theme behind many purpose-driven or seeker-sensitive churches. The one thing that does need renewing is our minds. (Romans 12:2)
Reinvent: The Emergent Church started use of this terminology with the statement that Jesus is fine, but we need to reinvent church. They say rather than being Christians, we need to be Christ-followers or followers of Jesus. However, Christians worship God through the church; the church was formed based on Scripture through the writings in the New Testament and the teaching of Jesus. Yes, some have strayed from that and need to be restored. But if you’re in a church that understands and follows the regulative principle of worship and worship in the way Scripture teaches, then reinventing church is essentially reinventing Jesus because the church was established by Christ himself. Reinventing worship takes the wrong assumption that we invented it in the first place. People didn’t invent worship, God did, and He instructed us how we should worship Him in his Word.
Reforming: Unlike the way I heard it defined, simply as change, or positive change. Reforming that is meant by this phrase is, re-forming our thoughts and actions to a standard. In the Christian’s case, that standard is scripture. Not just any type of change, but specifically, changing to conform to God’s Law.
So, reinventing church is best done by reforming it to what is taught in scripture as we have drifted (or run) away from God’s plan. We also don’t need to keep “making it fresh” as Marty does in Madagascar, but instead need to renew our commitment to God’s Word and his gospel.
Since then, I began hearing a number of other “re” terms used among Christians. These often sounded nice, but didn’t always reflect a change in the right direction. Here’s a quick list and explanation of these, and I’ll circle back around to “reforming” at the end to properly understand reformation. Change is a good thing, if it’s the right kind of change and if it’s not done just for the sake of change. Let’s take a look at a couple of these.
Renewal: Many look at church and worship as just needing some renewal or to refresh it so it comes alive for those who participate. The CRCNA has taken this approach by establishing the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship and focusing on worship renewal. This seems to assume that people have just become bored and need a constant barrage of newness in order to keep us interested. It assumes people need to be attracted to church through what we, as humans, do in our programs, music, etc… rather than being attracted by “the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” that has been preached since the time of the apostles. (1 Timothy 1:3-11) Even if the words are not used, this is the underlying theme behind many purpose-driven or seeker-sensitive churches. The one thing that does need renewing is our minds. (Romans 12:2)
Reinvent: The Emergent Church started use of this terminology with the statement that Jesus is fine, but we need to reinvent church. They say rather than being Christians, we need to be Christ-followers or followers of Jesus. However, Christians worship God through the church; the church was formed based on Scripture through the writings in the New Testament and the teaching of Jesus. Yes, some have strayed from that and need to be restored. But if you’re in a church that understands and follows the regulative principle of worship and worship in the way Scripture teaches, then reinventing church is essentially reinventing Jesus because the church was established by Christ himself. Reinventing worship takes the wrong assumption that we invented it in the first place. People didn’t invent worship, God did, and He instructed us how we should worship Him in his Word.
Reforming: Unlike the way I heard it defined, simply as change, or positive change. Reforming that is meant by this phrase is, re-forming our thoughts and actions to a standard. In the Christian’s case, that standard is scripture. Not just any type of change, but specifically, changing to conform to God’s Law.
So, reinventing church is best done by reforming it to what is taught in scripture as we have drifted (or run) away from God’s plan. We also don’t need to keep “making it fresh” as Marty does in Madagascar, but instead need to renew our commitment to God’s Word and his gospel.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Marriage in Job
I was reading through the book of Job the last couple of mornings and a brief observation came to me. Here's a brief recap, staring with the dialog between God and Satan.
Satan: 1:11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
God: 1:12 “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out and wreaked havoc: He took his oxen and donkeys and servants (v14-15), He burned his sheep and servants (v16), He took his camels and servants (v17), He killed his children (v18-19) But Satan did not touch Job or his wife! (see 2:9, 19:7)
Why not?
Could it be that scripture says that husband and wife are “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24)?
Satan: 1:11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
God: 1:12 “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out and wreaked havoc: He took his oxen and donkeys and servants (v14-15), He burned his sheep and servants (v16), He took his camels and servants (v17), He killed his children (v18-19) But Satan did not touch Job or his wife! (see 2:9, 19:7)
Why not?
Could it be that scripture says that husband and wife are “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24)?
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Answering Objections to Overture A at Classis
This last weekend I attended our Classis meeting and listened to the deliberation over the issue of Biblical inerrancy regarding our denomination’s position with Creation and Science and recent events. During the deliberation the overture was well presented and introduced with a couple others providing immediate support for at least the sentiment of the overture. The rest of the discussion proceeded and we heard several objections. The following is a list of those basic objections and answers which support the ideas of the original overture presented.
Objection: We drive people away when we take a literal approach to Creation
This objection is extremely subjective and speculative unless backed up by the data to support this. There are many different reasons people are driven away from the church, we can look at two opposing approaches related to the Creation and Science issue. It is true that many people are leaving the church, the alternative explanation is that people are leaving over this issue because they have lost faith and trust in the reliability of scripture because they have so many unanswered or weak questions.
When we look at data, we see studies and polls by George Barna and others by Britt Beemer in association with Answers in Genesis. You can find the results of the study in their resources under the title of “Already Gone”. http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/am/v4/n4/already-gone-small.pdf
Objection: There are many interpretations of scripture, why force yours on them
This is a corollary of the previous one, trying to question the approach of the report and its basis in scripture. It seems to be grasping at straws. To answer this it’s important to understand interpretation; every scripture passage has one interpretation (determination of the meaning and intent of the words given by the message giver), but many different applications (how do we use it to understand and shape our beliefs and actions). The next objection is important in interpreting the text.
Objection: Genesis is beautifully poetic and should not be taken as history
There are many different genres of writing throughout scripture. We may say this is written beautifully, thus claim it as poetry, but that is not a true determination of poetry. We need to look at the words, the style and the structure of the writing. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_3/j18_3_61-62.pdf
Objection: This overture accuses others of not respecting scripture
As one who holds to a Biblical creation model that is not what I believe or promote. However, I have noticed a pattern of this reaction. We certainly don’t make the accusation, but often are accused of that. The reaction of the message receiver is primarily the responsibility of the message receiver. The written word of people in communicating things can be problematic and easily mis-read.
Objection: The Bible addresses the questions of “who and what”, science addresses the “when and how”
This statement is more of an agreement of how we should separate our investigation of God’s creation. This statement is also easily demonstrated as false. Just look at the text of Genesis 1:1, we can quickly find the who (God) and what (heavens and earth). If we look at the rest of that chapter, we can’t escape the when and how, even though there are more unknowns and questions still outstanding. Throughout the first chapter we see indicators of time (when) such as “in the beginning”, “evening and morning”, “the first day”. We get other indicators of time as we look through the rest of scripture; the Bible is uniquely rooted in time and space and history. We also read indicators of the how, such as “and God said” indicating it was created by his word, and also referring to plants, birds, fish and animals “according to their kinds”. It also separates the creation of man from all the other things.
Objection: The NIV translators inserted a word that is not in the original to account when Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest of ‘your’ seeds to avoid embarrassment.
I won’t address the motivation issue here, but there are always answers to apparent contradictions in the Bible or between the special revelation (Bible) and general revelation (Creation). This claim is also what many see as part of the problem, when Christians help undermine the trust in the reliability of the Bible. You can go online and find hundreds of these so-called problems through the many skeptic’s sites. But, I’ve seen enough of these to have complete faith that there’s always a reasonable answer to these questions. This one is no different, the secret usually is to look at the text they reference, read it yourself, understand the context, and compare it to other scripture as well. This passage is found in Matthew 13:31-32, the context indicates a man planting seeds in a field. The seeds I found to be smaller than the mustard seed were the Orchid, Begonia, and Petunia; none of these are crops which match the context of field crops that the audience would have had in view.
Objection: We don’t want to go back to Galileo
This is an empty straw man argument and doesn’t deserve much space. For those interested in more details about that controversy, you can find an article at http://creation.com/the-galileo-twist.
Objection: a quote from John Calvin was read indicating his support for scientific investigation, implying his support for free inquiry of scientific scholarship
John Calvin through his commentaries and other writings support a similar view of Creation and the timeline espoused by the overture. Here’s an example from Calvin, “For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction.” Also, “They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe.”
Objection: We need to take an approach in Article 2 of the Belgic Confession that shows both general and special revelation as equal
Let’s take a look at the Belgic Confession, article 2. It does start with “We know him by two means” naming the two as “first, by the creation” and also “second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word”. This does indicate that both are God’s revelation, but when we run into a situation that seems to contradict between the two, we should side with the one that more openly reveals God to us. That shows the two are equal in truth, but when it comes to man’s understanding, God’s Word takes primacy. Next, let’s not forget about Article 7 The Sufficiency of Scripture which says, “everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it.” And that “the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects. Therefore, we must not consider human writings…equal to the divine writings. Read the whole article at the CRC web site, http://www.crcna.org/pages/belgic_articles1_8.cfm.
Objection: We drive people away when we take a literal approach to Creation
This objection is extremely subjective and speculative unless backed up by the data to support this. There are many different reasons people are driven away from the church, we can look at two opposing approaches related to the Creation and Science issue. It is true that many people are leaving the church, the alternative explanation is that people are leaving over this issue because they have lost faith and trust in the reliability of scripture because they have so many unanswered or weak questions.
When we look at data, we see studies and polls by George Barna and others by Britt Beemer in association with Answers in Genesis. You can find the results of the study in their resources under the title of “Already Gone”. http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/am/v4/n4/already-gone-small.pdf
Objection: There are many interpretations of scripture, why force yours on them
This is a corollary of the previous one, trying to question the approach of the report and its basis in scripture. It seems to be grasping at straws. To answer this it’s important to understand interpretation; every scripture passage has one interpretation (determination of the meaning and intent of the words given by the message giver), but many different applications (how do we use it to understand and shape our beliefs and actions). The next objection is important in interpreting the text.
Objection: Genesis is beautifully poetic and should not be taken as history
There are many different genres of writing throughout scripture. We may say this is written beautifully, thus claim it as poetry, but that is not a true determination of poetry. We need to look at the words, the style and the structure of the writing. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_3/j18_3_61-62.pdf
Objection: This overture accuses others of not respecting scripture
As one who holds to a Biblical creation model that is not what I believe or promote. However, I have noticed a pattern of this reaction. We certainly don’t make the accusation, but often are accused of that. The reaction of the message receiver is primarily the responsibility of the message receiver. The written word of people in communicating things can be problematic and easily mis-read.
Objection: The Bible addresses the questions of “who and what”, science addresses the “when and how”
This statement is more of an agreement of how we should separate our investigation of God’s creation. This statement is also easily demonstrated as false. Just look at the text of Genesis 1:1, we can quickly find the who (God) and what (heavens and earth). If we look at the rest of that chapter, we can’t escape the when and how, even though there are more unknowns and questions still outstanding. Throughout the first chapter we see indicators of time (when) such as “in the beginning”, “evening and morning”, “the first day”. We get other indicators of time as we look through the rest of scripture; the Bible is uniquely rooted in time and space and history. We also read indicators of the how, such as “and God said” indicating it was created by his word, and also referring to plants, birds, fish and animals “according to their kinds”. It also separates the creation of man from all the other things.
Objection: The NIV translators inserted a word that is not in the original to account when Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest of ‘your’ seeds to avoid embarrassment.
I won’t address the motivation issue here, but there are always answers to apparent contradictions in the Bible or between the special revelation (Bible) and general revelation (Creation). This claim is also what many see as part of the problem, when Christians help undermine the trust in the reliability of the Bible. You can go online and find hundreds of these so-called problems through the many skeptic’s sites. But, I’ve seen enough of these to have complete faith that there’s always a reasonable answer to these questions. This one is no different, the secret usually is to look at the text they reference, read it yourself, understand the context, and compare it to other scripture as well. This passage is found in Matthew 13:31-32, the context indicates a man planting seeds in a field. The seeds I found to be smaller than the mustard seed were the Orchid, Begonia, and Petunia; none of these are crops which match the context of field crops that the audience would have had in view.
Objection: We don’t want to go back to Galileo
This is an empty straw man argument and doesn’t deserve much space. For those interested in more details about that controversy, you can find an article at http://creation.com/the-galileo-twist.
Objection: a quote from John Calvin was read indicating his support for scientific investigation, implying his support for free inquiry of scientific scholarship
John Calvin through his commentaries and other writings support a similar view of Creation and the timeline espoused by the overture. Here’s an example from Calvin, “For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction.” Also, “They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe.”
Objection: We need to take an approach in Article 2 of the Belgic Confession that shows both general and special revelation as equal
Let’s take a look at the Belgic Confession, article 2. It does start with “We know him by two means” naming the two as “first, by the creation” and also “second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word”. This does indicate that both are God’s revelation, but when we run into a situation that seems to contradict between the two, we should side with the one that more openly reveals God to us. That shows the two are equal in truth, but when it comes to man’s understanding, God’s Word takes primacy. Next, let’s not forget about Article 7 The Sufficiency of Scripture which says, “everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it.” And that “the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects. Therefore, we must not consider human writings…equal to the divine writings. Read the whole article at the CRC web site, http://www.crcna.org/pages/belgic_articles1_8.cfm.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Do Muslims share in the plan of salvation?
Through my wife, I recently heard of a quote from Pope Paul VI, which claims that Muslims share in the same plan of salvation as Christians. Let's take just a quick look, here it is:
"The plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; those who profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." -Pope Paul VI in "Lumen Gentium"I'll try to be very brief in my response and let you be the judge, based on two quotes. One from the Bible, and one from the Quran. Here's the one from the Bible:
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. -1 John 4:1-3and from the Quran:
O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about GOD except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him. Therefore, you shall believe in GOD and His messengers. You shall not say, "Trinity." You shall refrain from this for your own good. GOD is only one god. Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. GOD suffices as Lord and Master. -Surah 4:171and
GOD will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Make me and my mother idols beside GOD?' " He will say, "Be You glorified. I could not utter what was not right. Had I said it, You already would have known it. You know my thoughts, and I do not know Your thoughts. You know all the secrets. "I told them only what You commanded me to say, that: `You shall worship GOD, my Lord and your Lord.' I was a witness among them for as long as I lived with them. When You terminated my life on earth, You became the Watcher over them. You witness all things. -Surah 5:116-117The Quran claims that Jesus is not the son of God, he has no divinity, he is merely a great prophet or apostle. The Bible claims that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ's divinity is antichrist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)