Who Owes Me Three Dollars?

July 30, 2006

It’s the heat that is responsible for my lack of p…

Filed under: Uncategorized — ineedsheetmusic @ 4:29 am

It’s the heat
that is responsible for my lack of posts. However, I feel forced to supply our readers with West Coast stuff since the main supplier of blog material is on a hiatus. (However, if you haven’t seen it you should check out this blogger coming out of semi-retirement.) You will have to be content with my sighting of the best personalized license plate I have ever seen. Here it is:

NTROEPY

Get it?

Advertisements

July 22, 2006

We decided to escape the heat by driving downtown …

Filed under: Uncategorized — ineedsheetmusic @ 9:35 pm

We decided to escape the heat
by driving downtown with our new picnic basket for a snack at Seaport Village. You know – cool ocean breeze, shade tree etc. It was 101 in downtown San Diego. It wasn’t really too bad by the bay, though. With the strong breeze and in the shade it was tolerable.

Getting back to RB was a shocker. 113 degrees. That ties a personal record for us in SoCal. It was 113 the day Reuben flew from California to Baltimore for his first semester at Johns Hopkins. The difference between then and now is that today the wind is blowing from the ocean. Back those many years ago it was a desert wind.

July 15, 2006

Take a timeout from religious material to view a h…

Filed under: Uncategorized — ineedsheetmusic @ 10:06 pm

Take a timeout
from religious material to view a highlight reel of Italian soccer player of recent notoriety, Mr. Materazzi right here. The idea is that heretofore we thought that Zidane was the only sinner in soccer. Some are surprised to learn that he is not alone in this regard.

July 14, 2006

We have nation X of ideology A. We have nation Y …

Filed under: Uncategorized — ineedsheetmusic @ 7:07 pm

We have nation X of ideology A.
We have nation Y of ideology B. Living in nation Y is a third ideology C – which happens to be the one true ideology, namely Christianity. Ideology C makes up roughly 40 percent of the population of nation Y. Ideology B makes up roughly the other 60 percent of nation Y.

Ideology B of nation Y has set up a self proclaimed theocracy where the sacred and the secular coincide. Ideology B, being bestial in its very nature turns nation Y bestial. Inspired by its B ideology nation Y does two things. It violates nation X and its A ideology but it also violates those people within its own borders who hold to ideology C, namely the Christians. Christians within nation Y cry out to God saying “How long” must we go on before you deliver us from the tortures of those that hate you and us?

Meanwhile, nation X has had it up to here with nation Y and decides to lower the boom on nation Y. Christians in nation Y see this development as the long awaited deliverance by their God.

Sadly, news comes forth that nation U – the boss nation – has issued an edict and applies political pressure on nation X that forces it to withdraw from lowering the boom on nation Y. Christians in nation Y are devastated. They ask “why did our deliverance fail to materialize like we had so hoped?” The answer comes: Nation U has become convinced that nation X is unjust in their actions to lower the boom on nation Y.Christians in nation Y ask how it was that nation U has become convinced of this. The answer comes: government officials in nation U have read a report defining what a just war is and were so convinced by it that they had no choice but to intervene and stay the boom-lowering hand of nation X. Christians in nation Y ask who it was that wrote this report. The answer: Christians in nation U.

Developing . . . .

July 12, 2006

Take a few minutes to read this very well known pa…

Filed under: Uncategorized — ineedsheetmusic @ 4:17 am

Take a few minutes to read
this very well known passage from Romans. Several years ago I preached a “sermon” in the San Diego county jail on this passage. In my crass way, I made the statement that this passage demonstrated that the apostle Paul was basically admitting that he had problems no different from a drug addict. (You gotta’ remember that most of my audience was comprised of drug addicts who always did what they didn’t want to do and I wanted to get them to identify with the Bible and see that their way out was Jesus Christ.) I remember one guy in the back was basically mortified that I would point out this flaw in an apostle. Overlooking the likelihood that I at least exaggerated the case, consider that I may have been flat out wrong. That is the position held by a great many exegetes of scripture today. They say that Paul was possibly speaking of himself prior to his conversion, or he was speaking of unbelievers in general and using himself as a foil to make a point.

The following is what Charles Finney [you might want to follow that link when you get a chance] had to say about this passage:
“Those who find their own experience written in the seventh chapter of Romans are not converted persons. If that is their habitual character, they are not regenerated, they are under conviction, but not Christians . . . . You see, from this subject, the true position of a vast number of church members. They are all the time struggling under the law. They approve of the law, both in its precept and its penalty, they feel condemned, and desire relief. But still they are unhappy. They have no Spirit of prayer, no communion with God, no evidence of adoption. They only refer to the 7th chapter of Romans as their evidence. Such a one will say, `There is my experience.’ Let me tell you, that if this is your experience, you are yet in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity. . . . You are yet carnal, sold under sin, and unless you embrace the gospel you will be damned.”

My purpose for bringing this up is not to hash out the correct answer. It is to ask you how you would go about getting the correct answer.

a) Logic: I know I am saved, yet I feel that Paul’s writing here describes my experience/feelings therefore I am going to go with Paul literally describing himself as a regenerate believer. [I’m OK, Paul’s OK.]

b) I am going to exegete the text to the best of my ability including looking at the surrounding couple of chapters in Romans and hope to figure it out.

c) I am going to do b) above and also see how my conclusions fit into my systematic theology especially as it is informed by Paul’s views on sanctification and other passages in the Bible by other writers as well.

d) Doctrine isn’t that important. As long as my relationship with God is okay [and as long as church gets out well before the football game comes on TV] I don’t plan on getting worked up over this passage.

HT to Riddleblog where this topic and Finney’s quote came up. Go there for the kind of quality exegesis you won’t find here.

BTW, this topic I believe underscores yet another place where a correct doctrine of sanctification shows its great importance.

July 11, 2006

I think there are three things you can take away f…

Filed under: Uncategorized — ineedsheetmusic @ 2:45 am

I think
there are three things you can take away from the discussion on intrusion ethics. The first is an appreciation for the big picture. Biblical theology is a way of looking at the bible that sees the history of the people of God under his sovereign control growing from a mustard seed like beginning into a full blown tree. Rather than dwelling in systematic theology issues (they have their own valuable place), biblical theology can be a great faith builder as you see how God works through history, as recorded in the bible, to bring his plans to pass. Seeing Israel in this way provides a strong picture of God operating purposefully.

Coming out of this view, the second thing you can take away is a different understanding of Israel and the function they had in redemptive history. Seen in this light, the two kingdom doctrine becomes prominent. As a theocracy, Israel was not a missionary institution, and were not exemplars for ethics in the church today.

Finally, this approach serves to highlight the question of who is my neighbor in the age between the first coming and the second coming (consummation). If you have an enemy you now know exactly what your relationship to him should be. Not knowing this side of the consummation whether your enemy is elect or not is enough for you to pray for him rather than hate him. (If you enemy is within the visible church, how much more clear can this be?)

July 6, 2006

Gearing up for the application of intrusion ethics…

Filed under: Uncategorized — ineedsheetmusic @ 1:44 am

Gearing up for the
application of intrusion ethics, I interrupt the topic with this famous quote:
“We are full of thanks to God that he, as Lord of history, has given us A)_________, our leader and savior from our difficult lot. We acknowledge that we, with body and soul, are bound and dedicated to the B)___________ and to its C)___________. This bondage and duty contains for us, as evangelical Christians, its deepest and most holy significance in its obedience to the command of God.” And its partner quote: “To this turn of history we say a thankful Yes. God has given him to us. To him be the glory. As bound to God’s word, we recognize in the great events of our day a new commission of God to His Church.”

Your task is to fill in A,B, and C. Hint: A) is a name; B) is an entity; C) is a title.

Blog at WordPress.com.