Notes from a not so notable pastor, “now concerning…”
Here is a question that I answered recently, which I thought might be helpful to some who have had the same question or one of a similar nature. The first paragraph is the question that I received and the last two are my answer. (more…)
The following is intended to summarize our seven week study of the biblical teaching on healing and examination of the claims of modern day faith healers in light of Scripture. I encourage you to listen to the entire series on healing if you were not present when we studied this together.
The series on healing is really a part of a larger study of 1 Corinthians 12-14 and other related biblical passages. This study examines these verses in their historical and biblical context. (more…)
Years ago when Gina and I were first married, I passed by an art display—I use that term loosely—on the side of the road. All of the renderings were pictures on an imitation or cheap velvet. One of them that I was particularly enthralled with was the King of Rock, Elvis Presley.
Immediately I envisioned “Velvet Elvis” prominently displayed in our living room; however, when I told Gina about my rare find, she responded with a look that shouted, “Did I really marry him?” Consequently, Elvis never found lodging in our home and my first encounter with “Velvet Elvis” ended in disappointment. The message was clear; “Velvet Elvis” is not worth having. For those of you who are wondering whether I would still decorate with such works of “art”, the answer is no, I have seen the light and “Elvis has left the….”
However, once again I have encountered a “Velvet Elvis”, but this time it is not a painting but a book written by Rob Bell. This encounter with “Velvet Elvis” has not left me disappointed but appalled and alarmed.
Rob Bell’s book “Velvet Elvis” is an example of some of the dangerously unbiblical leanings and musings of the “Emergent Church”.
A friend of mine, Mark Park, has written an excellent brief theological critique of the book, which I include here so that you will not be taken in by a creative title or the musings of a postmodernist masquerading as biblical truth. The simple truth is that, “Velvet Elvis” never was nor never will be worth having.velvet-elvis-critique-by-mark-park-8-07.pdf
I am often asked what I believe concerning election, predestination, free will and other salvific issues. Consequently, I am working on a paper that will answer many of these questions. When I am done, there will be about thirteen affirmations.
Although I am Calvinistic, with regard to salvational issues, I am neither a Calvinist nor Arminian. 1 Additionally, I am aware of the Calvinist’s answers to my statements. Consequently, this is not intended to convert anyone, but rather to elucidate my position on key biblical teachings, and thereby highlight what I consider to be some of the inadequacies of the theological and logical teachings of Calvinism.
The fact is, it is not more clarification of the Calvinist interpretation of Scripture that I need in order to “enlighten” me; for it is, in fact, their answers to the perplexities of Scripture, that after many years of consideration, I found to be increasingly unsatisfactory in light of the warp and woof of Scripture. (more…)
As you probably have heard, I am going to be a participant again in the Oxford Round Table this summer. This time it will be held at Harris Manchester College in Oxford. I will be presenting a paper entitled, “The Decline of Religion in Public Education and The Decline of Public Education”. As a part of my presentation, I included an argument in support of the validity of “religious arguments” in the public marketplace of ideas like education, politics, law and morals. Although I am not quite through with the argument, I thought I would share it with you before I leave on vacation.
As you know, I am a strong proponent of Christians going into the public domain and presenting “the truth in love”. Hopefully, the following will help you be better equipped to do that in even the most secular of forums.
Secularists summarily dismiss religious arguments from the public square simply because they are religious, which they define as being associated with supernatural religion or anything non-secular. In addition, an opinion is determined to be religious and therefore unworthy of public policy because it is either a part of a religious worldview, is derived from one’s religion, there is an element of faith involved, it is partly based on religion, or because it is merely consonant with religion.
The context of the discussion concerning the appropriateness of religious arguments and their influence upon public policy may be considered from the vantage point of historical precedence, constitutionality, morality and rationality, or spiritual mandate for adherents. The following is intended to addresses only moral and rational considerations. Thus, the question is, “Is it moral to exclude religious opinions from a democratic public marketplace of ideas just because they involve an aspect of faith—a faith assumption?” For the following reasons, my answer is NO. (more…)
Francis J. Beckwith, a wonderful Christian apologist and former President of The Evangelical Theological Society, has taken his stand with the Roman Catholic Church. I have just a few comments.
Dr. Beckwith is an outstanding Christian scholar, and from what I know about him, quite a gentleman. Consequently, my comments are not intended to be an attack upon the man, but rather his decision and concerns I have with the ETS and Baylor University. (more…)
Christians’ opinions about war cover the continuum from pacifism to patriotism—from no war to any war for the homeland. I think both positions are based upon selective use of biblical teaching.
It is true that God’s perfect world did not have war; however, it is incorrect to conclude from that truth that God is therefore against all war—e.g. a pacifist. We know that God is not a pacifist since He actually led Israel into war e.g. Jericho, Joshua 6; Ai, Joshua 8.
It is true that war is a dreadfully horrid situation. It is the most dreadful of conditions one can imagine except for tyranny and hell; unfortunately, the reality is that in a fallen world it is, at times, the only way to prevent would-be despots from imposing totalitarianism upon every man woman and child. Tyrants view humans as a means rather than an end; consequently, it is perilous indeed to believe that such a malevolent mind could value humane agreements or treaties beyond what is self-serving. (more…)
Deacons should play an important role in the life and ministry of the local church, and they very often do. Unfortunately, their New Testament role is often obfuscated by man’s wisdom. In Baptist churches, and other local churches that are similarly structured, the title of deacon can easily become an honor to be bestowed, a trophy of popularity or an insignia of importance; consequently, the deacon ministry easily becomes a ruling body of some sort, which has devastating consequences upon the local church.
The New Testament gives clear qualifications for being a deacon (1 Timothy 3:8-13), but there is scant information concerning their responsibilities, numbers, etc. The only example of men functioning in the role of deacons is Acts 6:1-7, although there is debate whether these seven were actually deacons. Some say they were, while others say they were elders and still others maintain that they were just some men set aside to meet a temporary need. I believe these were deacons, and later the qualifications would be expanded.
Assuming that these seven were the first deacons, we are still left without prescriptive Scripture concerning their responsibilities, yet there are some incredibly important insights to be gleaned from this event in the early life of the church. Let me mention four significant particulars from this passage and the New Testament concerning deacons, which can have a profoundly positive impact upon the deaconate of any church. (more…)
The KJV has been used mightily of God as His church has proclaimed the wonderful truths of Scripture throughout the world over the nearly pas four hundred years. The Bible is the best seller of all books for all times, and the KJV is the best selling Bible of all times.
The poetic nature of the the KJV accentuates the dignity of Scripture far more than some of the drier modern translations, and many would say that it is far easier to memorize as well.
These and other considerations result in an appreciation for the KJV by even those who do not use it as their primary translation.
Consequently, love and appreciation for the KJV, choosing the KJV as one’s personally preferred translations, or even believeing that it is possible one of the best translations is not a problem. However, there is a problem when, as some do, people say it is the only accurate translation. Supporters of the KJV only translation are dogmatic, sometimes downright atagonistic, but in reality the facts are not on their side. (more…)
The number of Bible translations has grown significantly and there seems to be no end in sight. This can be rather confusing for most people since they are, more often than not, unaware of the kinds or purposes of translations and/or what they are based on.
Some Bibles like the New International Version are intended to be easy to read and understand while maintaining fidelity to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, which is known as Dynamic Equivalence. Others like the New American Standard Bible are intended to accurately reflect the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts while maintaining a high degree of readability, which is known as Formal Equivalence.
The difference between them is two-fold; first, they are different in emphasis or purpose. Translators are constantly choosing from translations that exist on a continuum between most accurate—the original language—and most readable, which would be the simplest vernacular. The former would maintain accuracy but be unreadable to most, and the latter would be readable to most but dangerously inaccurate.
Second, they differ in regards to what manuscripts they use for their translation. While the King James is a formal translation like the NASB, the translators of the KJV use only some of the ancient manuscripts available; whereas, the NIV and the NASB use all of the available manuscript evidence.
Since the NASB uses all of the available manuscript evidence, is a formal translation, and yet very readable, I recommend that everyone have an NASB for their primary translation or at least for their Bible study. For a more thorough understanding of the differences in translations you can listen to my Messages on “Help!! Which Bible Translation is Right?” or click more for an synopsis. (more…)