parresia

Praise to God's mercy in

Praise to God's mercy in the covenant of grace

As the Westminster Larger Catechism reads:

Q. 165. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.

Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.

Or when we read the 34th article of the Belgic Confession, we are able to see full well the glory and promise of God's grace.

Tomorrow (Sunday April 1st) Kate and I are going to be baptized into the Church of Christ. For many years have I considered myself a Christian, yet after so many years am I finally gettting baptized-- my gratitude to God, though a mockery of what it ought to be, is by human standards most acute. Baptism "a sign and a seal" of our faith in the saving, efficacious work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who really lived and really died some two-thousand years ago for the salvation of His children. Vagrant me; yet God in His mercy has allowed for my justification. May my life always be one that falls to its knees seeking nothing but mercy, and relying only upon God's benevolence and promise. Nothing in me do I see as worthy, yet I believe in and call upon Christ: this is my salvation. Praise be to God Almighty!

News1. 13 year old girl

News

1. 13 year old girl given the morning after pill without parent's consent.
2. Schools and more brilliant policy: Let's outlaw playing "tag."
3. Life in Jerusalem (things aren't always greener on the other side).

a poor analogy"After he had

a poor analogy

"After he had received the drink Christ said, 'it is finished.'" Likewise, jeremy put down the pen and said, "it [winter quarter] is finished."

Thanks be to God for beginnings and endings. It is the ending of another quarter, and yet the beginning of a short break; the break too will have an end.

Remember Tonight! Life After Darla performing at Patsy's in Westminster. It's free, and it's all ages, so come on down!

Russian HamletLast Friday night (March

Russian Hamlet

Last Friday night (March 16th) Kate and I had the wonderful experience of the Eiffman Ballet. The expression was nothing short of profound, and the beauty in form was enchanting. Tis an amazing thing God has blessed man with: the ability to communicate...without saying a word. How amazing is language, even when spoken; many philosophers dispute one another as to proper explanations of just what "language/speech" is. How much more sublime is the "language" of dance? Tell me who is the philosopher who answers to this question? And tell me who is the god that claims to be above the All Mighty, who would claim that even dance is mere evolution of muscle movements, and a need for survival? For indeed our God is so profound in expression that even our human ability to communicate is nearly incomprehensible; even our poor attempts at language and discourse (though from a mind created in the image of God) are as a savage brute's groans.

The Russian Ballet, set to the music of Beethoven! Who could ask for more? Praise God for times of joy and entertainment; for because of Him those times are so much more than mere entertainment: indeed, they proclaim His very power and presence!

Liberty, Christian?Sometimes the hypocracy is

Liberty, Christian?

Sometimes the hypocracy is pathetic.

An 8 year old girl has been banned from handing out "religious" i.e. Christian materials at her school (ever notice that Islamic paraphrenalia is considered "cultural" or "exotic," even Judaistic material is "historical" while Christian material is considered a threat to the separation of church and state). No she wasn't street witnessing, but she did make her own Valentine greeting cards that said things like, "Jesus loves you." But of course the other kid's Valentines cards were perfectly acceptable, including Britney Spears clothed in ultra-short shorts, and the boys from N*Sync (one of which was wearing a cross).

The problem I see is that non-Christians fail to realize that secularism/atheism/paganism/neutralism/any-ism is just as much "religious" as Christianity is religious. When this type of censorship is allowed it does not demonstrate a victory for fairness, rather it demonstrates an acceptance of secular RELIGION over the one true religion revealed to man: Christianity.

Here is an important announcement:This

Here is an important announcement:
This Friday (march 23rd) my band, Life After Darla, is performing in Orange County. There is no cost, and no age limitations (before 10pm). Everyone is invited, so please feel free to come by and cheer us on. It's going to be a very cool show. Opening up the night is UCLA's seven piece band: The Fishermen. Don't miss it.

II Kings 10:28-36, some commentaryIn

II Kings 10:28-36, some commentary

In the several verses prior to 28 we learn that Jehu, King of Israel, obeyed the word of the Lord which was to execute all Baal worshippers. I would like to comment on is what takes place after Jehu's obedient act. We read:

28 Thus Jehu eradicated Baal out of Israel.
29
However, as for the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel sin, from these Jehu did not depart, even the golden calves that were at Bethel and that were at Dan.
30
The LORD said to Jehu, ""Because you have done well in executing what is right in My eyes, and have done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in My heart, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.''
31
But Jehu was not careful to walk in the law of the LORD, the God of Israel, with all his heart; he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam, which he made Israel sin.
32
In those days the LORD began to cut off portions from Israel; and Hazael defeated them throughout the territory of Israel:
33
from the Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, the Gadites and the Reubenites and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the valley of the Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan.
34
Now the rest of the acts of Jehu and all that he did and all his might, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?
35
And Jehu slept with his fathers, and they buried him in Samaria. And Jehoahaz his son became king in his place.
36
Now the time which Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria was twenty-eight years.

I found it very interesting that King Jehu would go through all the trouble of executing all the Baal worshippers (his method of doing so is certainly worth reading, and his act was not a simple process), only to leave "open for business" so many other false-god temples, alters, and the sort. I thought it a close parallel in our own lives of how we might "eradicate" a major sin in our lives, yet remain defiant, completely obstinate, unwilling to eradicate the "smaller" acts of sin. It is all too easy to pat ourselves on the back for overcoming (to some degree or other) a sin that has for long been an issue of turmoil and stumbling, only to neglect the myriad other sins that we do CONSTANTLY, such that we do them almost without even noticing.
It is not unimportant to point out that God, although pleased in Jehu's act of obedience (in the 'big' thing), did not allow the other ('smaller') areas of disobedience to go on without impunity. We read that because of Jehu's failure to eradicate ALL false worship from Israel, God allowed for many portions of Israel (Jehu's land) to be overtaken by Hazael: Jehu's army being "defeated" time and time again.

In parallel how much does our own sin enslave us to moral "Hazael's"? How do our sins cause other areas of our walk with God to be "defeated"?

My friends, so vital is our obedience to God's law, not to gain favor, nor to improve our standing before God, but because, having been saved, we owe EVERYTHING to God. We are indebted to God, and our disobedience only shows us to be ingrate thieves. Jehu reigned over Israel for just 28 years. How quickly the time must have been spent, and how much regret did Jehu inccur over that period? In our fleeting lives, how many "golden calves" do we have littering our land, going unchecked? Let us flee to God in repentence. Not because we want to be saved, but because we are saved!

Martin Luther and the mystery

Martin Luther and the mystery of God.

"Are there problems raised by this Biblical doctrine of the absolutely sovereignty of God in providence and grace? Of course there are. Everything that God reveals of Himself transcends man's comprehension; every doctrine, therefore, must of necessity terminate in mystery, and man must humbly acquiesce in having it so...

...If I could by any means understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith." ~~Martin Luther

These words express a truth that I am grudgingly coming to terms with. As a young student interested in philosophy I seemed to believe that I would somehow be able to climb the ladder, and peak into God's chamber: knowing those things about God that have thus remained a mystery. Now just a few months away from graduating with a degree in philosophy I am coming to terms with the FACT that simply because of the infinite difference between God's nature (as creator) and human nature (as creature), humans will never, in this life, fully understand GOD.

However, this is not cause for despair, for "there is life after this life" and all that is not understood now will be revealed, "provided only that meanwhile we believe it, as we are instructed and encouraged to do..."

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25
So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
27
Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31
But these are written that you may [1] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

How easy it might be for us to claim "if only I was alive when Jesus was on earth, certainly I would not doubt Him," but who are we fooling?

If you would like a

If you would like a much more detailed look at the theological determinism problem look here.

A brief comparison of physical

A brief comparison of physical determinism, and theological determinism

If physical determinism were true, humans would have no way of knowing it was true. By contrast, theological determinism is not only compatible with an agent’s being responsible, but this responsibility comprises/constitutes just what it is to have free will. Therefore, I contend in this essay that physical determinism, even if true, would be epistemologically pointless, and by contrast, theological determinism, regardless of its truth value, offers a potential explanation without falling into the same epistemological binds as I charge physical determinism. These are the points to be defended here.

Defining terms is the first step. I take it physical determinism is the view that since the big bang the laws of physics have made necessary all subsequent phenomenons. E.g., just as a rock falls at a set velocity to the ground on account of gravity, so too a platypus evolved from a dolphin, so too is the migration of whales to the arctic, so too the process of photosynthesis in the leaves of a plant—All things do what they do, according to physical determinism, because of their physical history. Theological determinism I take it then is the view that “Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.” Put another way, the view of theological determinism being discussed is the view, not that God predestines all things, but that God’s foreknowledge seems to make necessary all events.

Having defined both physical and theological determinism I turn now to consider what I see to be the logical and inescapable consequence of physical determinism. To begin, let us suppose that physical determinism is true. From the big bang forward then we have matter in motion—matter behaving in strict accordance with accidental, random events taking place according to the laws of physics. The matter would, so it seems, eventually evolve to the point where there are brains and brain activity. This brain activity then is nothing more than electro-chemical reactions that take place according to the laws of physics. These chemical reactions are without reason or intellect because they are caused solely by events that behave according to the laws of physics, which were set into motion on account of random, accidental events at the big bang. One man’s brain’s chemical reactions are no better nor more trustworthy than the next man’s, for in each and every brain they are all just random events happening without cause, other than the laws of physics, which were set into play by random accidental events at the big-bang. E.g., a man who sleeps in the gutter and talks to himself incessantly is simply responding to chemical reactions in his brain, so too is the Ivy-league philosopher in the armchair: he is responding to chemical reactions in his brain. If one man’s chemical reactions are not more trustworthy than the next man’s, we would have no reason to believe that any man’s claims are true . I contend that on account of the accidental, random (brutely-physical) events of the big bang, which are the starting point for all future physical events, there is no reason to believe any man’s brain activity over another (including the scientist over the savage). Therefore, if physical determinism were true, it follows that we would have absolutely no reason/justification to believe it to be true: we would have no justification for trusting our beliefs/thoughts.

Turning now to theological determinism. If theological determinism were true such that what God foreknows necessarily takes place, then I contend that we would still be responsible for our own actions, and this responsibility is all that is required for free will to be a reality. Put again, it is my contention that, even with God’s infallible foreknowledge, humans are responsible for their actions, and this responsibility just is being free. Take a hard case: a Navy General (G) orders a Private (P) to kill a Civilian (C). Now if theological determinism is true, then God foresees whether or not (P) will obey the order. Let us say that God foresees the death of (C), now it can be said that God is the first cause of the action (like the general is the first cause of the civilian’s death), but He (God) chooses to work through instrumental causes (2nd causes), i.e., through the act of P. This being true, it is such that P is responsible for killing C, even though G is the first cause. How can this be true? Because, if P would have chosen to disobey G’s order, then P would have done so. Now, it might be said that P still had to kill C necessarily since God foresaw it. To this statement I would not disagree. P did have to kill C (it was a necessary event), since that event is what God foresaw. So how is it that P can be held responsible? Because, if P had chosen to do otherwise—other than kill C—he would have. Furthermore, when I sit down in my room and decide what color socks to wear, certainly it is necessary what color I will choose (since God has foreseen it) but epistemologically I do not have any idea which color I am going to choose until I do such. Once I choose a color, then I can know that that color was a necessary choice, but not until after the case. This inability for me to know ahead of time makes me responsible for my actions, even when my actions are ultimately necessary. Put another way, if P would have chosen to do other than kill C, then that is what God would have foreseen, or yet again, if I had chosen red socks instead of blue socks then it would have been that choice God would have foreseen.

Now a physical determinist might respond by saying it is simply not the case that from the big-bang forward things just respond to chemical reactions—at some point in our history the human obtained the ability to think rationally, to deliberate, hence, the argument I posed above would be moot. There are two things I would say in response to this claim. First, the perception of rationality (that the physical determinist perceives he has) could all be explained as a part of the consequences of our random brain events according to the laws of physics. In other words, just because the physical determinist feels like his claims are stronger than the man’s in the gutter, does not mean that they actually are. Second, the physical determinist is hard pressed to give any substantive explanation of just where this rationality (this ability to reason) came from, and why it ought to be trusted when even it (rationality) is merely a product of random chemical reactions that came about from a accidental random event at the big bang. So I conclude that there is at least a case to be made for the compatibility of theological determinism and free will/responsibility, on top of my contention that physical determinism, even if true, would be an epistemologically moot position.

My mother wrote a poem"

My mother wrote a poem

" Rosa May from Bodie Camp"
BUmp bump went the Rocky road. Smell the sage. the road from lore.
the backroad from bodie, that stages once strode. Hanging bushes, linger
thru the canyon. Walls of granite cut of wind.
Listen to the stage coach creak. She feels her heart beat. She knows what
she is. But what else do they expect? Long ago, down that bumpy road. Rosa
May Go. go to town to buy some gown. Rosa May from Bodie camp. The MIners
Love to stare. OPen your purse, rosa May buy something Fine. Go to town- your
head held high. Ride that bumpy Craggy road. head held high, you shal'nt be
shy. Rosa may from Bodie brave.
The women who once were.
Rosa may hear the wind. Rosa May Far from home. taste the dust.
Know and trust. listen to the miners wail. Rosa May you shall not fail.
rosa May from Bodie camp.
~~Lillian Stock

I thank my mother for much of the creative abilty and interest that I have developed over the years. Her love of music, art, and creation has been a very positive influence on my life. The truth is that much of what my mother creates could be sold, and she could make good money, but she chooses to primarily to hold onto her creations, and she does it just for the satisfaction it brings her.

Augustine: on Psalm 3:8"Salvation is

Augustine: on Psalm 3:8

"Salvation is of the Lord; and upon Thy people be Thy blessing" (ver. 8). In one sentence the Psalmist has enjoined men what to believe, and has prayed for believers. For when it is said, "Salvation is of the Lord," the words are addressed to men. Nor does it follow, "And upon Thy people" be "Thy blessing," in such wise as that the whole is spoken to men, but there is a change into prayer addressed to God Himself, for the very people to whom it was said, "Salvation is of the Lord." What else then doth he say but this? Let no man presume on himself, seeing that it is of the Lord to save from the death of sin; for, "Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord." But do Thou, O Lord, bless Thy people, who look for salvation from Thee.

"And upon thy people be Thy blessing..." I encourage us to consider that this prayer is one which we ought to pray often. For what do we find in the creation account but that of God blessing mankind:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them..."

He did not bless the heavens and earth; rather God's delights were with the sons of man. Proverbs 8:31. We see that this blessing then is not of little importance, and we ought not forget that it is this very blessing that we turned from in Adam's rebellion, and that we turn from each time we sin.

It also should be considered that God's blessing (even as He blessed the animals) came as a command to mulitply and fill the earth. What this should teach us concerning marriage and procreation should be obvious: God's blessing just is that when we are united to our spouse we ought to multiply and fill the earth, for this is what his blessing consisted in. Obed-edom had eight sons, for God blessed him I Chronicles 26:5.

Oh Lord, may your blessing be upon us even as it was upon Adam in the garden. May we, through the sanctifying work of your Holy Spirit, be the delight that you would have us be, and may our offspring increase the Kingdom God.

Descartes' response to the Theological

Descartes' response to the Theological determinism problem

Just a reminder of what the problem is:
Since God by definition knows the future, and what He knows must come to pass, is it then possible for my actions to be free? And if they are not, then is God the author of sin? And if they are, then how can God know the future?

Descartes claims that the soul is a thing that wills, thinks, believes, hates, etc. One of the most important aspects of the soul, according to Descartes, is its will: Descartes even says in his Meditations that the will is one of the ways man most closely resembles God's image. In accordance with this Descartes claims that the will is something which cannot be limited. He simply believes that a will (the ability to affirm or deny something) is inescapably and by nature unlimited. Hence, for Descartes it is very easy to see where "free will" comes into play; it is merely a product of the fact that God created us with a soul, and this soul has the ability to will.

So God's foreknowledge then foreknows what we are going to do, but this foreknowledge does not "limit" our ability to choose because NOTHING can limit our ability to choose. Seem too simplistic? Well, as I said before, I am going to limit my criticisms until after I have presented what are the most common responses to the free will problem. I will only then make an attempt to attack the views, and perhaps in the process find a convincing answer.