Pete's Blog

Feel free to correct my spelling (or grammar) if I have any errors in my posts. I just corrected my misspelling of "complementarian" in the previous posts that used it (I used to think that it had two 'i's in it).

Labels: Miscellaneous

Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. . . .

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

Labels: Miscellaneous

"It's not about going back to the nineteenth century; it's about going back to the Scriptures." Albert Mohler said something like that on his radio program on November 25^th, in reference to complementarian Christian women asserting that they want to start a counter-cultural movement where it is acknowledged that there is a difference in the roles that men and women are to enter into. He said that when he read the True Woman Manifesto (I'll get to it in this post), he got the impression that if a Christian woman in the 19^th century were reading it, she would wonder why the document was written. It would be like a duh moment. The goal of the complementarian movement is not to make people old fashioned. The goal is to be biblical.

On the program, he was talking with Mary Kassian, professor at Southern Seminary, Canadian, author and speaker (and the first person to get a post with the "Character" label on my blog). On it, they were talking about the True Woman conference that happened back in mid-October, where about 6300 women went to listen and interact about biblical lessons on gender, and more specifically, femininity. They talked a fair chunk about the document I mentioned above. Mrs. Kassian wants to see 100 000 women sign the document internationally. That's my hope for many of the girls who read this blog, that maybe you would sign it.

I mostly wrote this post because I liked what Mohler said so much. Evangelical feminism is brand new, less than a hundred years old. It's coming out of the culture of radical feminism, not the Bible. If egalitarianism were biblical it would have emerged in Church history at some point earlier. It didn't. Biblical gender is not about going back to the cave man days, but it's about being biblical.

Below is the audio that's from the conference. I hope you listen to it. I've only listened to the panel discussion and Mrs. Kassian's first talk so far, but I'm going to read the rest soon. I highly recommend her talk.

Thursday, October 9

Friday, October 10

Saturday, October 11

Labels: Characters, Miscellaneous, Resources

Mormonism is almost a form of universalism. Depending on which Mormon you talk to either only those former Mormons who went into apostasy will go to hell, or those who knowingly and willingly reject the Mormons' gospel will. The reasoning behind this is they think that hell was created for the spirits who rebelled against Elohim (i.e., specifically God the Father in Mormonism; Yahweh is Jesus within that system) before the foundation of the world, and that earth is for everyone else by Elohim. The enticement for becoming a Mormon is getting into a better level of heaven; there are three different spiritual levels of heaven, and then there's also hell. If you want more information on the system, I would recommend listening to James White on Issue Etc. talk about Mormons' view of heaven.

To ascend to the best level of heaven, you need to be baptized by a Mormon who's been baptized (they believe in a similar form of apostolic succession as Catholics, that the Holy Spirit is only passed on by the laying on of hands by someone who already has the Holy Spirit). For some non-Mormons who are dead, modern day Mormons will go through the rite of baptism for the dead which they take from 1 Corinthians 15:29, "Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?" So, for example, if a Mormon man were to take an interest in the late Marilyn Monroe he could get baptized for her (which, realistically, has probably already been done, Mormons keep such quality and extensive genealogical records to track such things), hoping that she respond to the preaching of the gospel in the next life (which they justify based on 1 Peter 3:18, 19: "Christ ... in the flesh ... went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison"), and he'll meet her in his level of heaven.

All that is introduction to a controversy I read about in an article that's arisen between Mormons and Holocaust survivors and their descendents. When new names of victims of the Holocaust are discovered, the Mormons are getting baptized for them. The Jews are worried that this practice will play into the hands of future Holocaust deniers. They're worried that people will look back on history, reading through the Mormons' genealogies, see all these victims' names and think that they were Mormons not Jews.

The Mormons are responding by agreeing to take all the Holocaust victims' names out of their records. I guess it shouldn't surprise me since I think that Mormons even have a non-proselytizing policy for Jews, considering them to have their own covenant.

The reason I wanted to post on this is because I find it funny. This is what happens when your communion tells you that anyone who doesn't believe what you believe needs to be evangelized, and then makes exceptions. It makes perfect sense to me that the Mormons would be getting baptized for these deceased Jews – they didn't believe in Jesus or Joseph Smith, of course they need to be baptized. The idea that Jews' own covenant covers them is just confusing, unless you consider that what's realistically happening is the Latter Day Church is compromising since it's so politically incorrect to evangelize Jews.

Lastly, I think this serves as an example of why exclusivism (i.e., that only those who accept the Gospel will be saved, with the exception of babies and mentally disabled people in some cases) in evangelicalism is the only consistent position to take. There is no biblical warrant for thinking that you can be saved outside of Christ, even if the Gospel is not available where a person perishes. It may seem harsh, but first, it's just, and second, it's such a motivation to go and send. "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?" (Rm. 10:14, 15).

Labels: Miscellaneous, Politics

Peter Kreeft, Catholic convert, formerly a reformed Protestant, is an apologist. He has a strong voice within the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, Protestants might also be aware of him, since he was the scholar interviewed for the first objection that Lee Strobel deals with in his book The Case for Faith.

I was reading Dr. Kreeft's testimony of his conversion to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism today, when I came across the argument that follows:

I was impressed by the argument that "the Church wrote the Bible:" Christianity was preached by the Church before the New Testament was written—that is simply a historical fact. It is also a fact that the apostles wrote the New Testament and the Church canonized it, deciding which books were divinely inspired. I knew, from logic and common sense, that a cause can never be less than its effect. You can't give what you don't have. If the Church has no divine inspiration and no infallibility, no divine authority, then neither can the New Testament.

What Kreeft, and Catholics in general, are arguing is that it is logical to conclude that the Church must be infallible. This comes in contrast to Protestants arguing that the Bible is the only infallible authority given to man (the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which was fought for intensely in the Reformation). For easier examination of the argument, and to see where Protestants take issue with it, let me restate Kreeft's argument in a syllogism,

1. The apostles (who were part of the Church) wrote the NT and the Church canonized the infallible Bible;
   
2. A cause (i.e., the Church) is never less than the effect (i.e., the Bible);
   
3. Therefore, the Church is infallible.
   

It is with the first premise that the protestant would take issue. The apostles did scribe the Bible and express it in their own words, but the thoughts were God's. He wrote the Bible. First Peter 1:21 reads, "no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." God wrote infallible books using fallible men. But it was the Spirit who overcame their fallibility, "as they were carried along," so that the books are infallible. So the syllogism reasons that since God is the cause of the Bible, and the Bible is infallible, we infer that God is infallible. We already knew that.

I suspect that Kreeft would admit that the argument more rests on the canon than on the Church writing the Bible. He knows that God wrote the Bible. Catholics like to argue that since Protestants have no infallible authority from which to state the canon (which, up to this point, I agree with), we have no Bible at all. They insist that to have a Bible, the canon must be infallible. Protestants take issue with this, saying that we have a fallible canon of infallible books. God in no revelatory way decisively stated which books were to be in the canon. So, we must discern which books of the early Church belong there. Since man is fallible, that canon is fallible. So, applying Kreeft's argument, in observing that the Church caused the canon, which is fallible, we infer that the Church is at least fallible (which is not news).

The point is to say that you need to presuppose that the canon is infallible for the argument to work. The only reason the Catholic Church knows the canon is infallible is because on the Church's infallible authority it was stated so in 1546. It's a circular argument. Protestant ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) is not hindered by this argument because it does not use the Protestant doctrine of the Bible.

I'm eventually going to write a post on cause and effect, but when I saw this argument, I couldn't resist commenting on it.

Labels: Long, Miscellaneous

The Telegraph wrote,

A top 10 list of irritating expressions has been compiled by researchers at Oxford University...

1. At the end of the day
   
2. Fairly unique
   
3. I personally
   
4. At this moment in time
   
5. With all due respect
   
6. Absolutely
   
7. It's a nightmare
   
8. Shouldn't of
   
9. 24/7
   
10. It's not rocket science
    

They also said that "literally" and "ironically" are also found to be highly irritating when used out of context. Interesting.

Labels: Miscellaneous

There were two posts on Justin Taylor's blog today talking about the importance of not voting for a pro-choice candidate. One, the second, had a YouTube video on it, that I'd seen before. Recently my brother had a son. He was the first newborn I'd ever been around. He was remarkably small and fragile. I'd been around babies who were a few months old before, but never one three days old. As I watched the video, there was an aborted baby (starting at 3:11) who I could completely see my nephew in (although, watching the video a second time to find the time index, I noticed that they weren't overly comparable, but I could still imagine my nephew being that size). I dislike the hyperbole (at 0:59), "and no one seems to care," because it's so unhelpful at sympathizing with truth. But that notwithstanding, I think the video is helpful, otherwise.


Tristen Lance Eddy (5 days old, b. Sept. 24, 2008)

Labels: Blogs, Friends, Miscellaneous, Politics, Resources

Take the test.

Labels: Miscellaneous

In the news today, they reported that the FOTON-M3 Spacecraft returned with its test specimen Water Bears, tardigrades, survived under extreme conditions – high radiation and a vacuum. Radiation that would irreparably damage human DNA, had no noticeable results. In fact, the article reports that the radiation probably did impact the DNA of the creatures, but that they were able to repair the damage.

I think that this is so cool. God created a creature that could survive in the harshest of environments. Whether in extreme cold or extreme heat, or exposed to the sun's rays in amounts a thousand times harsher than experienced on earth, they survive. God is creative.

--

Also in the news, there was an article stating that researchers at UT found that women experienced more difficulties and challenges working under a woman than under a man. If you're interested in the details, read the article. One of the theories for why this was happening was, "women working under other women tend to have more conflict because they are expecting female bosses to be more supportive and co-operative but instead find some women 'manage more like men, which can be more conflictive or combative.'" Women want their female bosses to be different from men, but they aren't behaving as women, but as men.

With a biblical worldview, this theory seems viable. I wonder whether it will have any impact on business policy. Or maybe women will change their expectations of their female superiors.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Labels: Bible, Blogs, Characters, Miscellaneous

Labels: Abbreviations, Miscellaneous, Resources

(This post is the result of the comment thread of a post that Jer made on his blog.)

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:1-6)

Labels: Bible, Friends, Miscellaneous, Resources

First, I want to say how much I disapprove of so much of what has happened behind the doors of the courts in Canada and the US, whether it's Roe v. Wade in the States or homosexual unions here, there is no end to the shock that I get from what the courts are doing. I now want to draw your attention to something absolutely disgusting.

The courts are now the senior parents of Canadian children? This is ridiculous. "Whoever spares the rod hates his son,but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him" (Proverbs 13:24). Denying privileges (not rights) doesn't seem too bad by comparison.

Second, having nothing to do with the former, a Piper wrote an interesting thought on his brother's blog: "It's odd: those most opposed to 'topical' preaching are often the most committed to systematic theology. Soteriology and pneumatology are topics, no?"

If you know me, even if you don't know the terminology, you probably know that I love jumping into the Bible and seeing how it answers certain questions. That falls under systematic theology. I am a systematic theology buff.

Barnabas' (the guy who wrote the quote) post is really good though, because expository, verse-by-verse preaching best models biblical theology. I would far opt for expository preaching of whole books of the Bible before choosing topical sermons. Which makes Barnabas' point so insightful.

This second portion of the post seems to be begininning to neander aimlessly, so let me conclude in my agreement that good systematic theology must begin with excellent biblical theology.

If you want an application, I've got one: Read your whole Bible. Don't pick and choose which books of it to read. Read two books of the OT, one book of the NT. Read the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27)!

Labels: Bible, Blogs, Humour, Miscellaneous, Politics

Labels: Bible, Friends, Manhood, Ministry, Miscellaneous

The following was taken from a message given by John MacArthur at the Together for the Gospel Conference in 2006. I thought that it was funny so I figured that I would share it. If you're listening to the audio, it starts at 32:27.

One other note: Mac will say there are "three reasons…". Fear not if you missed the third (and even the second). He only says two, and the second was is only distinguished from the first by the words, "the other."

I hope that it edifies your souls, and makes you chuckle at the end.

"I think, I mean, this is arguable, I guess, but I think, maybe the most assaulted doctrine today is the headship of Christ over His Church. ... We say, 'Oh, what do you mean, "Christ is the Head of the Church"? We all know that; Colossians 1, Ephesians 1 - we all know that. Isn't that a little benign to us?' Do you know, that doctrine has sailed down to us on a sea of blood? You know how many people have been massacred over that issue? ... In the conflict between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics about who is the Head of the Church, Roman Catholicism still says the pope is the Head of the Church, and if you deny that, you're anathema. Take the covenanters, they fought the battle, lost their lives, over whether the king or queen, or the pope (when there was a Catholic monarchy) is the Head of the Church. Today, we've got a whole bunch of little heads of their churches popping up all over everywhere, who, in effect, have produced a mutiny against the true Head of the Church by taking the Word of the Head of the Church out of the Church, and silenced Him. You take the Bible out of the Church, you take the Word of the Head of the Church, away from the Church, and you have carried off a revolution. When you bring to the people the mind of Christ, contained in the Word of God, you exalt the headship of Christ over His Church. At [the] Ligonier Conference I talked about this, and went back to Jan Hus. He was July 6th, 1415 burned at the stake. And there were basically three reasons they burned him at the stake. It's really an incredible story. They burned him at the stake, one, because he said the true Church is made up of all predestined believers. That doesn't sound too revolutionary. Not unless you accept the Catholic view at the time. The true Church is the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests, period. And the only way that lay people communed with the Church is through the wafer. Well, Hus was in agreement with Wycliffe, that all predestined believers are the Church. This was unacceptable to them - absolutely unacceptable. And the other big issue was that he said that the pope was not the Head of the Church. And for that he was burned at the stake. R.C. Sproul told me an interesting story, a little bit of a history. When Hus was burned at the stake, you remember he was called 'the Goose,' he was from Husinec, but he shortened it to Hus 'the Goose,' that's where we get the phrase, 'The goose was cooked.' ... But when Hus was being martyred, he made the statement that, 'You could kill me,' (something like this) 'but there will come another after me, that you will not be able to silence.' Well, that was a hundred years later, exactly, that was Martin Luther. Luther was rummaging around in a library, and found a whole bunch of papers of Hus's sermons. And he found Hus to be a pre-Reformation Reformer, who was dealing with the same doctrinal issues and even Hus came out strongly against Indulgences. So Luther found a real partner. That's why some paintings of Luther, you'll find a goose in the background, because Hus was like a hero. Hus was sentenced to die by the Bishop of the Council of Constance and he died in the flames, singing psalms. A hundred years later Luther comes along, reads his sermons, picks up on it, he's a hero, even adapts the idea of being a goose. Luther is the fulfillment, in a sense, of that prophecy, 'One will come after me, that you will not be able to silence.' Curious note, R.C. Sproul told me, Luther was ordained at Erfurt, and when you were ordained in those days you had to lay, on the ground, flat on the floor, below the altar, with your arms spread ... in the sign of a cross. And Luther was lying there in that position when he was ordained, and he was lying on a crypt. And the crypt was the crypt of the Bishop of Constance who had condemned Hus to death. And R.C. Sproul imagines that when Hus said, 'You may silence me but there will come one after me you will not silence,' that maybe the Bishop of Constance said, 'Over my dead body.' Maybe, maybe."

Labels: Humour, Ministry, Miscellaneous, Resources

On Saturday, I was taking the elevator up to my mother's condominium with another guy in the elevator. I was carrying a notebook, the type that we used in elementary school that's big and colourful on the outside, and he asked me whether I was going to study. I told him that school was over. So he asked what the book what for, so I told him for notes, not realizing that my response would probably perplex him. Upon his confusion, he asked me whether it was recreational, so I made it more clear, "Sermon notes. Church notes." He finally understood it. He then asked what church, wondering whether I was with the Latter Day Saints (or LDS, for short). I quickly said, "No" and told him that I was a baptist, as he walked out of the elevator. Either he's a Mormon, in which case his response wouldn't scare me at all, or else, we as evangelicals have done a poor job of representing ourselves in society.

Labels: Abbreviations, Miscellaneous

Labels: Characters, Ministry, Miscellaneous

We want to see Jesus lifted high
a banner that flies across this land
That all men might see the truth and know
He is the way to heaven

Labels: Abbreviations, Miscellaneous

On Wednesday my last course posted the final grade. I knew that I was done. I'm not a student at Carleton anymore. I opened up a record of the status of my degree at Carleton (the degree audit report, for my Carleton buddies) and it said, "ALL REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BELOW HAVE BEEN MET". It was a very sweet moment.

It's tough to believe. After 19 years of schooling (from Junior Kindergarten to fifth year of University) I'm out. Realistically, I'm not done with academia. I'm excited about going to seminary some day and dipping my toes in the riches of theology that great men have dug up before me. But, that's year from now. Real life is before me. I feel liberated.

Accomplishment is a great feeling.

Labels: Miscellaneous

I'm worried that having made the previous post and adding the list of Piper links that I've taken away from the seriousness of my blog. I really don't want this blog to be a joke. So, to balance the previous post with my desire for this blog to be civil, sensitive, from my heart, and God centred, I would like to elaborate on why I promote the ministry of John Piper so much in my Christian circles.

Firstly, I am immensely indebted to him for his teaching ministry. Dr. Piper has shown me that there is Truth in the Bible and that some of it needs to be dug out. His passion for going after the unseen and making it plain to lay people such as myself has inspired me. I read the Bible more now because I've seen what God has shown Dr. Piper and I want to see it myself.

Next, I had never so clearly heard anyone say that Jesus is worth dying for. It was radical. I saw it in the Bible, but it wasn't something that Christians were outright saying. It seemed inconsistent until I heard Dr. Piper give the challenge to not waste my life.

Thirdly, Dr. Piper's theology of Christian Hedonism makes me believe that God is indeed personal. If the definition of love is obedience (as some say 1J. 5:2 teaches) then that god would merely be a machine awaiting accurate input. Instead, this God wants to be loved. He wants me to delight myself in Him and that the love of good and joy in doing good would compel me to act.

There's so much more to say, but I'll conclude with this. In all my imaginings about God before I became a Christian, I didn't understand why He created us. Dr. Piper's view of the sovereign God of the Bible who ordains all history for His glory makes sense of my questions. If God were anything less than sovereign, or if He were anything less than focussed on His own glory, He wouldn't be omnipotent, He wouldn't be omniscient. He simply wouldn't be the ultimate, Creator God.

I do evangelism because when I heard the Glorious News of Jesus Christ it brought me to my knees as I cried over my sin and thanked God simultaneously for my forgiveness, and it is my desire to bring that to others. I want to share John Piper's ministry with others because he has brought me so much closer to God that I want everyone to have that opportunity as well.

Labels: Miscellaneous