The Daily... Occasional News

Sancification by Faith

2009-07-14T21:26:00.007+01:00

Thursday, 8 February

Yesterday the weather was exceedingly stormy and only had eight out at the Prayer Meeting. At night brought the Class to a close. Spoke on holy living and, in finishing, pressed upon them the necessity of starting out upon the way of life. In preparing for this last meeting, through Dr. Hodge's way of presenting the Truth got an insight into the doctrine of the believer's union to Christ which has been a great comfort and help to me. I see that I have been attempting the sanctification of my soul in the strength of my own endeavours and I have miserably failed, just because I did not realise that the same helpless looking to Christ which is necessary to justification is just as necessary to sanctification. I seem to have caught sight of new power here, and to have come to see that the rising of the old nature within me is not mine, but pertains to sin which dwelleth in me and which I hate (Romans 7:20) and therefore that the guilt of it is not mine unless yielded to. (Murray, Iain H., Diary of Kenneth MacRae, Banner of Truth Trust, 1980, pg. 179-180)

I was struck in reading the above tonight. I have often had cause to think the thought in bold above myself, and yet as I read it I realised that I had again fallen into the same trap. It is so easy to become self-reliant as one seeks to walk as a Christian.

I sometimes find that at the very times I ought to fly to God for aid, i.e. when I particularly feel my sin, on the contrary I am loath to come to Him for fear that I come merely out of hypocrisy for forgiveness of sins of which I have repented previously. In these instances I find myself trying my hardest to please God in my own strength before I again feel I can come before Him without hypocrisy.

It is thus again a timely reminder to me "that the same helpless looking to Christ which is necessary to justification is just as necessary to sanctification". Equally it is good to remember the story of Luther who when the Devil came accusing him with a list of sins added to the list before writing over them all "Paid in full by Jesus Christ". We must remember that Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

These are things that we all know, but we (or I at any rate) so easily forget. It is therefore good to be reminded of them anew.

When Satan tempts me to despair,

And tells me of the guilt within,

Upward I look, and see Him there

Who made an end of all my sin.

Charitie Lees De Chenez

15 Peaks Challenge

2009-07-06T16:59:00.008+01:00

I had had the desire to complete the Welsh 3000’s (the 15 Peaks over 3000 feet in Wales) in 24 hours for a couple of years. I had intended to complete the challenge last year but had not been up to it. However, this year, both myself and Dafydd felt in pretty good shape and determined that the challenge would indeed be completed.

1. Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) – 0355

We started walking from Llanberis at around 0000 on Friday (3rd) morning. In Llanberis a fairly thick fog limited visibility, but as we gained altitude we managed to leave this behind, though unfortunately the stars were still blotted out by the clouds above us. The walk passed fairly uneventfully with the only other creatures out being bats and sheep whose eyes looked very spooky in the torchlight.

We didn’t particularly strain ourselves on the ascent and reached the summit at around 0210. We stood at the summit a while and noticed another head lamp below us. As it began to get closer we heard voices as well – voices which seemed to indicate gladness at our presence because we marked out the location of the summit for them! Eventually two other intrepid explorers emerged from the mist, who then informed us that they were on the last leg of the famous 3 peaks challenge and had come up from the Miner’s Track that starts in Pen y Pass. After having congratulated them and wished them all the best for their return to Hastings, Dafydd took a picture for them and they went on their way again.

The challenge officially starts from the top of Yr Wyddfa and we had set our starting time at 0400, which meant we had almost two hours to wile away (not wanting to take on a slippery Crib Goch in the dark). We wandered down to the deserted Snowdon Summit Café and sat down in an alcove. Most of the next two hours was spent in trying to work out how to use the flash on my brother’s camera, something we failed to do and which we later came to regret.

At around 0350 we decided that to wander over the summit again and after having snapped a couple of pictures we started the walk officially at about 0355 – the race was now on to complete the 15 Peaks in Wales over 3000 feet in 24 hours.

2. Crib y Ddysgl (Garnedd Ugain) – 0420

A quick and uneventfull stroll along the ridge brought us to Crib y Ddysgl bringing up our second peak of the day. I was feeling very fresh at this point and was setting a good pace. The only slightly awkward part of this section was ensuring that we left the Llanberis path at the right point to follow the ridge to Crib y Ddysgl. In the mist we could have easily missed this and ending up traipsing back down to Llanberis. However, there is a boulder that clearly marks the way and we had no difficulty in following the ridge along to Crib y Ddysgl.

3. Crib Goch – 0530

From Crib y Ddysgl we came to probably the most dangerous part of the walk. Even in dry and sunny weather Crib Goch is not particularly safe, but in wet and misty weather as on this morning it is very dangerous. On one occasion I found myself edging out onto a ledge to my left with a sheer drop below wondering why I was doing this.

The last time I went across Crib Goch it was both dry and packed with day walkers; this time it was wet and absolutely deserted. While the wetness made it more treacherous, the isolation simply made it seem somewhat less safe than it seems when one is surrounded by other people – particularly when the other people are clearly less adept than oneself. In this situation one feels that surely if someone is going to fall off it will be one of these people - when one is on one's own, however, there is not such comfort.

We eventually and somewhat surprisingly reached the summit, though we didn’t realise this until we had begun descending fairly steeply – the summit of crib goch is notoriously difficult to identify – and I was very relieved to see a faint path to the left down the scree onto some grassy banks which led down to the road. Eventually we reached the road and turned left to reach the Snowdon Sherpa carpark where we were to meet my dad. At about 0700 we wandered into the carpark, by which time my boots were filled with water (and this was the first time that I severely regretted failing to waterproof my boots before the walk).

4. Elider Fawr – 0950

It was getting on towards 0800 before we took the plunge again and went out into what was by now a torrential downpour to make our way up Elider Fawr. After an initial wrong turning we got onto the right track and began to make headway up towards the summit.

Of the whole day this was probably the mountain I least enjoyed. My feet were soaking and it was about this point that I really began to feel the effects of not have slept since 0800 on the previous morning. I felt almost nauseous all the way up and the wet blistering feet didn’t help, but eventually after what seemed an interminable length of time we finally saw the summit cairn. But there is still no rest for the wicked and no sooner had we rested momentarily than it was time to conquer the next summit – Y Garn.

5. Y Garn – 1115

Though both of us had been up Y Garn several times previously neither of us had ever approached it from Elider Fawr before. I’m not sure if it was covering new territory that enlivened me but at about this point my tiredness suddenly slipped away and by the time we were approaching Y Garn I was feeling fresh and lively.

We realised that we had to skirt round Foel Goch prior to the ascent of Y Garn, and in the mist we were careful to avoid ascending what we though was probably Foel Goch and when later we came to a path stretching upwards we attacked it with vigour. However, on reaching the summit we quickly realised that this was certainly not Y Garn, but was in fact Foel Goch. This was somewhat annoying as it had needlessly added additional ascent to our journey, but we were not especially perturbed by this and continued along the grassy ridge to where the path began to ascend the slopes of Y Garn, continuing then to the summit.

6. Glyder Fawr – 1235

From the Y Garn summit onwards the walk was on territory that we both knew very well which did make me feel slightly better and almost as if to encourage our new found optimism the low cloud began to clear as we headed down to Llyn y Cwn. From Llyn y Cwn we went up the steep scree to the left and after about 20 minutes slog came out onto the plateau which gently rises up to the peak of Glyder Fawr, to the peak of which we simply followed the excellently bountiful cairns.

7. Glyder Fach – 1320

We then proceeded on towards Glyder Fach along a path that was again clearly marked by cairns. We ignored completely the enchanting Castell y Gwynt, which though an exhilarating climb, would have been an unnecessary delay as at only 50 feet prominence it is only classified as a Nuttall (and only just a Nuttall at that!). The real goal, instead, was just beyond it.

Glyder Fach is always a nuisance to reach, particularly from Glyder Fawr. It isn’t so much that it is tiring as that there are just so many rocks to climb over and every time one imagines the summit is near one sees another pile of rocks ahead. However, eventually what we knew was the summit came in sight, confirmed by the sight of the famous “canon” to the right of it. After a clamber to the top we were infuriated to find that the camera battery had gone flat – no doubt as a result of our persistent messing with the flash earlier that morning. I proceeded to attempt to take some photos on my phone, but was also thwarted in this because it wanted a memory stick or something and I didn’t know how to change the settings.

8. Tryfan – 1445

Next up was one the most distinctive mountains in all of Snowdonia. Though the smallest of the 3000s it is perhaps the only mountain that involves pretty serious scrambling to reach the summit no matter from which direction one approaches. Prior to ascent though we had a choice, either go over the famous bristly ridge or skirt round bristly ridge to the right to join the path later. In the end we took the latter route.

The sun was out in force by this point and we ascended to the top without much incident, though there were one or two points when we were clambering up ledges with large drops to the side when I was extremely thankful that the sun had now dried the rocks.

My mind wandered back to the last time I had attempted to ascend Tryfan. We had come up the north face, but at a certain point (which now we realised must have only been a few feet from the summit) decided to turn back due to excessive ice, which we were not prepared for with no crampons or ice axes. We turned back only to find that the worst was yet to come.

Now the north face of Tryfan, which we had ascended, is a difficult scramble, which virtually merges into climbing at some points, and while this is fine when one is ascending it becomes much harder on the descent. Added to this we seemed to find ourselves descending a particularly difficult section and on several occasions we were faced with two equally daunting options for descent, neither of which we would have taken ordinarily but that we were forced to take now. On one occasion I remember we had to slide down a narrow ledge, and it was at this point my hiking bag started to push me off the ledge, I remember thinking that I’d better just go for it so allowed myself to fall grabbing on the way down a hand hold and swinging myself to safety – rather daunting though, nonetheless! Equally at one point we were left with two impossible descent routes as options and so had to edge along the mountain until we found a more reasonable descent – which thankfully happened to lead to a nice scree and than grass slope which no longer presented a danger.

Anyway there were no such problems this time and we descended by the west face and found what must be one of the easiest ways possible down Tryfan. How glad we were though to see my dad in the car park below and be given the chance to restock on fluids and change soaked socks.

9. Pen Yr Ole Wen – 1820

From the carpark below, Pen Yr Ole Wen seemed daunting. I had used all my blister plasters trying to patch my feet up and the last thing I wanted to do was ascend the undoubted beast that is Pen Yr Ole Wen. There had been some discussion, with no resolution, as to whether the South or the East ridge would be more appropriate but at this juncture we both unanimously agreed that the East ridge, rather than the dreaded South ridge was appropriate. Though longer, the east ridge is considerably easier and at this stage we were both unwilling to face the South. So we started from the bottom of Pen Yr Ole Wen at around 1700 and we were up in under 1 hr 20 minutes, which we felt was a good time. It was interesting that from this moment on a new freshness came upon us. I had expected the ascent of Pen Yr Ole Wen to be a real difficulty but actually I found myself more energised than at any previous point. As I came to the top I met and spoke to an old 15 peaks veteran, who gave some heartening encouragement that further helped the way forward. Furthering the extra empowerment was also the fact that by this point the weather was quite marvellous with brilliant views all around.

10. Carnedd Dafydd – 1850

An uneventful stroll over to Carnedd Dafydd followed, with the wind picking up a bit but marvellous sunshine still spread across the mountains. The sun glistening on the sea in the distance was quite stupendous.

11. Yr Elen – 2010

Perhaps the most annoying part of this walk Yr Elen does somewhat ruin the flow because in order to reach it one has to go completely out of ones way. On the ridge towards Carnedd Llewelyn and Yr Elen the wind really started to pick up, but to look back and see first Carnedd Dafydd and then Pen Yr Ole Wen in the distance really showed how far we’d come providing a pick-up.

We had almost reached the top of Carnedd Llewelyn when we veered off to take in Yr Elen. However, it is a quite brilliant mountain with it’s plateau offering superb 360 degree views.

12. Carnedd Llewelyn – 2040

Annoyingly we then had to take in what we had already done in order to get up Carnedd Llewelyn – it is annoying but unfortunately there is no way around it. But at this point we really started to feel it was almost finished. Certainly the last three would be no challenge and anything that may be a strain on the legs was now behind us.

13. Foel Grach – 2110

As we got past the last of the rocks that mark Carnedd Llewelyn we looked at the watch and realised that it was 2100, this gave us just under and hour to complete the challenge in 18 hours. As this seemed a reasonable goal and as it would give us added motivation we set this as the target and proceeded at a fairly vigorous speed to complete these final three mountains.

14. Garnedd Uchaf – 2125

Garnedd Uchaf scarcely seems to count as a mountain, having a prominence of only just over the 30 meters required for it to be classified as a Hewitt, indeed many people do exclude it entirely from the walk they call the “14 Peaks”. However, it is the list and it is scarcely much of a diversion to include it in the walk so it seems reasonable to do so.

15. Foel-Fras – 2150

Now for the final mountain! As with the previous two no great excursion was required to reach this as the grassy slope is fairly gradual. We thus could afford to put on as much speed as our blistered feet and battered legs could muster to reach it just inside the 18 hour mark. What a relief, high-fives were exchanged and then we had the gruelling walk back to Abergwyngregan to come!

Abergwyngregan 1140

Walking back from a completed challenge is always a rather unpleasant experience. This part of the walk almost seems pointless and all energy seems to zap away. As it is purely a psychological phenomena one would imagine that it should be fairly easy to combat. For example, I’m pretty certain that had Drum also been included on our walk then I could have walked along to it perfectly cheerfully, but the deflation of walking miles that don’t seem to count is hard to fight against.

I must confess that it was shortly after the walk back began I really began to crack under the sleep deprivation (almost 40 hours by the time we got back to the car) and physical exhaustion (I had found it very difficult to eat and thereby restock carbohydrates during the day).

I think I first noticed the effects when I stopped to urinate and noticed a badge with a cartoon face on the floor, however on closer inspection this turned out to be a stone. At the time I scarcely thought anything of this and merely put it down to poor light playing tricks on my eyes. However, a little later on I noticed a woven bag by the path that had a golden coloured handle and a picture of a chicken on it. It seemed an odd place to leave it and, hesitant to touch it, I kicked it. Only to realise that it was in fact a stone, but the strange thing was that even when I bent down and examined it closely it still looked like a bag, I concluded that someone had painted it. Then just next to the bag I noticed a stone with the moss arranged into a face – wow, I thought, they’ve done a few of these! Then as I stood up to catch up with Dafydd I realised that every stone I looked at had a face. `I’m starting to go ga ga,' I thought to myself and caught up with Dafydd telling him about it and asking him to make sure I didn’t wander off on my own.

Then the fun really began, huge dolphins on the hillside, clowns in the bushes, I saw things everywhere. Though at the same time I was perfectly rational about it and realised that they obviously weren’t real and that I was imagining it. Though once or twice I was fooled when I was determined I could see some tents with a car parked outside that simply weren’t there!

The joy of eventually turning the corner round the mountain above us (Foel Dduarth I think) to see the headlights of the car waiting to pick us up the the valley below! We quickly made speed down though the gorse, ignoring the prickles, to get to the car where we could finally relax.

We did this walk to raise money for a charity that has greatly benifited my brother over the years, you can donate online if you so wish here: http://www.justgiving.com/benjaminlowery/

Trust in God

2009-03-11T12:09:00.007Z

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba. Genesis 22:1-19

How often has this story been quoted, by those with no inkling of what real trust or faith in God is, to demonstrate God’s cruelty and Abraham’s inhumanity. How can it be right, they ask, to worship and obey a God who in nothing other than cruel and capricious whim demands human sacrifice?

Leaving aside the question of whether or it would be possible for the creation to be capable of greater good than the creator, those who claim that such a God is not worthy of worship may well be right: Why would we wish to worship a God who is simply a manifestation of the greatest human vices coupled with omnipotence?

Yet those who make this objection miss the point of this account in Genesis 22. It is precisely because Abraham did not have this view of God that he so willingly obeys God here. Here, perhaps more than anywhere else in the Bible, is simple trust and childlike faith portrayed. Abraham obeys God not out of fear of an impulsive God, but out of love for, and trust in, a kind God. First in foremost in Abraham’s mind was the truth that would be expressed by Paul 2000 years later (Romans 8:28) “that all things work together for good to them that love God.” That this is no idle imposition on Abraham’s thoughts is demonstrated by the word of the writer to the Hebrews, who said in the Spirit, (Hebrews 11:17-19) “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”

Obedience motivated by morbid fear has never been pleasing to God: Rather he asks for trust. Trust as that of Job, who said (Job 13:15), “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him”; Trust that says with Luther, “I would run into Christ's arms if he had a drawn sword in his hands.” For it is trust that knows, though all outward circumstances seem opposed to it, that God is good and that (Psalm 103:17) “unto them that do Him fear God's mercy never ends.”

This is why the writer to the Hebrews calls this an act of faith, not merely an act of obedience. For in this acts Abraham so fully demonstrates trust in God – Abraham is willing to obey God because he knows that God is (Exodus 34:6) “merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.” Abraham knows that God has both Abraham and Isaac’s best interests in view, and he is marvelously vindicated in this view when God spares Isaac and Abraham recieves Isaac again, as it were, from the dead (Hebrews 11:19). Not only this but God then pronounces a blessing on Abraham, “I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”

We should with Abraham, take comfort in the absolute sovereignty of God – and with Abraham trust in God (Psalm 136:2) “for his mercy endureth for ever.” And most of all let us remember that what God did not expect Abraham to finally carry through, he was Himself willing to fulfil when we gave His Son for those who had reviled Him.

Yea, so truly for us careth,

That His Son, all we’ve done, as our offering beareth;

As our Lamb Who, dying for us,

Bears our load, and to God, doeth in peace restore us.

Paul Gerhardt

A look back on 2008

2009-01-15T10:08:00.007Z

I found this quiz here.

Remembering 2008

A good book I read

Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad - I don't know how I lived for 20 years without reading this, but it is one of the greatest books ever!

A great film/movie I watched

Changeling - the best film of 2008 in my opinion.

A new place I visited

I went Gleann Nibheis (Glen Nevis) for the first time and climbed Beinn Nibheis (Ben Nevis) for the first time - I had a great time. Four of us went up on Friday 18th July and camped at the foot of Beinn Nibheis. On Saturday we went up, and then on Sunday we went An Gearasdan (Fort William) and attended the Free Presbyterian church. They were very friendly and we went to the minister's family's house for dinner, tea and then for supper after the evening service. We came back home on Monday the 21st July.

A discovery I made

Paedobaptism is true!

An inspiring verse or quote I read

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C. S. Lewis. The quote is from Mere Christianity but it actually came properly to my attention in The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue.

A new skill I acquired

I've improved my mountain skills... don't know if that counts as a new skill.

A lesson I learned

Never EVER go up a mountain in jeans!

A moment I will always remember

Climbing up Tryfan at five in the morning to see the sunrise on 16th of February. I've never had such as incredible feeling, the views were breathtaking! Below are some pictures.

Meditations on the Christmas Story

2009-01-02T12:08:00.001Z

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.” Luke 2:8-18

“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.” Matthew 2:1-11

I have been struck over this Christmas period by the wonderfully Catholic nature of the Christmas Story. In a time and culture which saw salvation as exclusively for Jews the Christmas Story widely proclaimed that salvation was for all men everywhere, regardless of class or race.

I would draw your attention to two of the key incidents in the story.

Firstly, I would point to the Shepherds on the hills outside Bethlehem. The story is related to us in Luke 2:8-18, here we find men of relatively poor, maybe even despised, occupation. That God should choose to tell these men of the good news of the birth of Jesus Christ shows quite clearly that before God riches or social status avail nothing. Rather the Bible teaches that all men are undeserving whether rich or poor, and God comes to each purely by his grace and goodness.

Secondly I would direct your attention to the story of the wise men from the east, recorded for us in Matthew 2. Though not actually a part of the nativity scene – it appears they arrived in Bethlehem around two years later – they are generally also remembered as part of the Christmas Story. These are antithetical to the Shepherds in many ways. Firstly it would appear these are Gentiles, a marvellous prophecy of the bringing in of the Gentiles in Christ. Secondly it would appear from their ability to travel such a great distance and from their gifts that these were also men of wealth. How many Christians have despised men of wealth because of passages such as Matthew 19:24, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” They have failed, however, to read what out Lord says next, (verse 26) “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” Certainly a love of riches is incompatible with Christianity (Luke 18:22), but as these men demonstrate (as well as people such as Philemon) possession of riches alone does not keep one from heaven.

Here then we find in the birth of Christ, polar opposites, great extremes brought together and resolved in Christ: the rich, the poor; the Jew, the Gentile. Truly spoke Paul when he said, (Colossians 3:11) “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”

Political Compass

2008-12-09T13:29:00.004Z

Above is my "political compass", according to http://www.politicalcompass.org/. It's an interesting test and worth having a look at. It seemed to sum me up fairly well as I came out roughly were I expected: slightly to the left and on the more libertarian side.

The Bandwagon

2008-11-24T13:07:00.003Z

Everybody else seems to be actually putting these things in posts and as I think I started the stream that has been hitting the blogosphere (out of my group of acquaintances) I though I'd better do it too!

The definition at mypersonality.info of an ENTP says, "ENTPs are logical, innovative, curious and downright inventive. They see possibilities for improvement everywhere and possess the ability to understand complex concepts. ENTPs are introspective and carefree nonconformists. They often neglect the more common areas of life while pursuing new solutions. ENTPs can be good conversationalists and exciting company."

Which sounds okay, but I'm not sure about this from socionics.com, "ENTps are far from angels. Don't be fooled by their clumsiness, spaced-out behaviour and over-friendliness. Behind it all is a very cold rational mind, motivated by a starvation for attention. So, if an ENTp is friendly and nice to you: a) they want you to like them; b) they also need something else from you... ENTps are great masters of tricks and deceits, often more than ESTps, and what's more they do it in a very skilful manner. ENTps are masters of arrangement and sharp psychoanalysts, able to foresee exactly how others can react to a situation. They can turn the whole world against you, if you are not careful. ENTps also have the unique ability to make a deal with their conscience. They can successfully justify almost any wrong doing, thus ensuring that they will sleep well at night."

That makes my sound like a bit of a scoundrel! Though I think socionics.com is somewhat tongue and cheek so I'm not too worried!

Psalm 102:1-12

2008-10-06T12:30:00.000+01:00

To this my prayer O listen, LORD!
And let my cry for help reach You.
In day of grief hide not Your face.
Your list'ning ear toward me O bend;
The day I call, Your answer send,

For all my days go up in smoke,
And like a hearth my bones are burned.
Like grass my heart is crushed and dried;
I daily food forgotten leave;
My skin and bones together cleave.

With sighs and groans my frame resounds.
I'm like a desert pelican,
Or like an owl in ruined wastes.
I lie awake, as on the roof
A sparrow stands, alone, aloof.

All day my foes their taunts repeat;
Those filled with anger curse my name.
I food with tears and ashes mix,
For You on me in anger frown;
You raised me up to throw me down.

An ev'ning shadow are my days;
Like grass I wither soon away.
But You, Jehovah, sit enthroned
Forever; Your memorial
Abides through generations all.

From The Book of Psalms for Singing

Contraception and Children

2008-10-03T13:30:00.008+01:00

There are usually two approaches to the issue of contraception and family planning among Christians. On the one hand there is the view that makes full use of methods of family planning in order to limit the number of children that they have to a number the parents desire, be it two, four or whatever. On the other extreme is the view that to use any form of non-natural contraception is wrong and unbiblical. I propose to demonstrate that the emphasis of both of the positions is essentially unbiblical and propose a third middle position.

I will first make one important observation, and that is that the position that forbids all contraception has the advantage of having the full weight of Church History on its side. The Roman Catholic teaching on the issue is well known; I will merely satisfy myself with pointing to the historic Reformed teaching on the subject.

Historical Overview

Calvin says in his Commentary on Genesis and on 38:10:

I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime.

Luther said on the same passage:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.

The Westminster Annotations 1657 (commissioned by the Westminster Assembly) say of the same passage:

There is a seminal vital virtue, which perishes if the seed is spilled; and by doing this to hinder the begetting of a living child, is the first degree of murder that can be committed, and the next unto it is the marring of conception, when it is made, and causing of abortion: now such acts are noted in the scripture as horrible crimes, because, otherwise many might commit them, and not know the evil of them.

The equivalent Dutch annotations ordered by the Synod of Dordrect said of the same passage:

This was even as much, as if he had (in a manner) pulled forth the fruit out of the mother’s womb, and destroyed it.

It was not until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 that the Church ever recognised any contraception as legitimate, Article 15 of that conference reading thus:

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

It is thus plain to see that the historic Reformed community have viewed contraception as completely unjustifiable, and have plainly condemned it.

Criticism – Historic View

As a Christian particularly aware of the catholicity of the church I hesitate to differ from the historic consensus. However, the principle must be held in mind that while we must only interpret the Bible with reference to the historic teaching of the Church, we must nonetheless only interpret the Bible, and not lay burdens on believers where the teaching of the Church appears to have been interpolation on the text. This was after all the cry of the Reformation, Sola Scriptura. Not the poor imitation that has been made by many “evangelicals” who take historic Church teaching out of the equation, but still Sola Scriptura nonetheless.

There are two main reasons for my criticism of the historic view of the church. I will outline these below:

1) Firstly, the primary biblical text used in defence of this position is the passage in Genesis 38:9-10:

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

This is (to my knowledge) the only text that opponents of contraception argue specifically forbids the contraceptive act. However, though I am reluctant to depart from such luminaries as Calvin, Luther, the Synod of Dordt, and the Westminster Assembly, I cannot view this as anything other than an interpolation into the meaning of the text. For it seems plain from the text, though we are not specifically told, that the sin of Onan was that he refused to raise up seed to his brother, Er. Certainly Onan was sinning, and sinning grievously, by refusing to raise up seed to his brother for we find that this Levirate marriage custom was continued into the Mosaic law, and in Deuteronomy 25:9 we find the punishment thus:

Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.

In the light of this, and the fact that the text does strongly imply that Onan’s sin was refusing to raise seed to his brother, saying that he “he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother,” it seems that the only grounds for saying that Onan’s contraceptive act was sinful in itself would be if that were already presumed to be sinful on other grounds. Now as this is the primary proof text such argumentation seems somewhat akin to that logical fallacy known as Begging the Question.

I do not pretend that this is the only text put forward against contraception, but the others do not directly oppose contraception per se, but rather a certain attitude towards children. I will use these texts later in defending my own position.

2) This position assumes a certain view of sex that is essentially unbiblical. The tacit assumption is that the reason for sex is procreation. Indeed I have often heard this said, “God only made sex fun because otherwise we’d be extinct.” In brief, the only outright argument against contraception is one that assumes that physical intimacy within marriage is not a worthy thing in and of itself.

Now I have not the slightest doubt that the Reformers and many today who are against contraception would flatly deny that they hold this view of sex. In this I do not doubt their sincerity, but nonetheless, I maintain that the position they take can only be logically defended from this position, and thus assumes such a position, whether or not the adherent consciously maintains such a position.

That this position grew up out of a view that physical intimacy was not a worthy pursuit apart from procreation is evident when we come the Church Fathers:

Clement of Alexandria in his Stromaties 3.58

If a man marries in order to have children he ought to practice self-control. He ought not to have a sexual desire even for his wife, to whom he has a duty to show Christian love. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will. We have learned not "to pay attention to physical desires," "walking decorously as in the light of day" – that is, in Christ and the shining conduct of the Lord’s way – "not in drunken carousing, sexual promiscuity, or jealous quarreling."

Jerome Against Jovinianus 1.20 says:

Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children… the truth is that, in view of the purity of the body of Christ, all sexual intercourse is unclean.

And then goes on to say, 1.49:

Hence Xystus in his Sentences tells us that He who too ardently loves his own wife is an adulterer. It is disgraceful to love another man's wife at all, or one's own too much. A wise man ought to love his wife with judgment, not with passion. Let a man govern his voluptuous impulses, and not rush headlong into intercourse.

Equally Augustine said, amongst other things, City of God 14.16:

What friend of wisdom and holy joys, who, being married, but knowing, as the apostle says, how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour, not in the disease of desire, as the Gentiles who know not God, would not prefer, if this were possible, to beget children without this lust, so that in this function of begetting offspring the members created for this purpose should not be stimulated by the heat of lust, but should be actuated by his volition, in the same way as his other members serve him for their respective ends?

Thus it can be easily seen from what background the Reformers views on contraception originated, and though they most certainly refuted these excessive views they still maintained the social stigma of contraception, and imposed this in their interpretation of Genesis 38, which exegesis it seems necessary to say, though with great reluctance, was wrong.

Let me for a moment positively put forward the biblical view of physical intimacy within marriage. Primarily it is necessary to observe that the marriage bond is a type of the relationship between Christ and the Church. This is demonstrated by an vast number of scriptures, I will satisfy myself in pointing to one, Ephesians 5:31-32:

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Now, can it be said that that bond which most fully shows forth this unity, the physical intimacy shared by a man and his wife, is not a noble and good cause for its own sake. This truth must be kept in mind, or else all who cannot have children, or who are old are then made to feel like their intimacy in worthless. But, no! The unity is the unity of Christ and the Church; it is worthy in and of itself, quite apart from its use for procreation.

Criticism – Modern View

Nevertheless, the prevalent view among many today is equally damaging as the views of many of those saints who we call the Fathers, which we have cited above. Namely, the view that it is acceptable to use contraception as a normal means by which we choose when to have children or when not to have children purely on the basis of perceived economic or social benefits.

For the scriptures are plain, and in many places, that children are a blessing, and that abundance of seed, far from an annoyance or a difficulty, is a gift from God. Has this not always been the promise of God? When God promised to bless Abraham it was to say that his seed would be a great multitude, saying (Genesis 22:7) “In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” Though it be allowed that this was not his direct children, it still shows how God blesses people by providing them with children. For the Bible specifically says in another place that (Psalm 127:3) “children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.”

There are many more places where children are spoken of as a blessing. Solomon says, (Proverbs 17:6) “Children's children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.” God says to Israel, (Deuteronomy 7:14) “Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you.”

So when people are granted children it is a blessing. But is it right to limit these blessings? The action itself is perhaps not wrong, but one must severely question a society where there is a design to limit the extent to which God may bless with children. Contrary to this the Bible speaks of large numbers of children as a blessing. The Bible speaks of how (1 Chronicles 25:5) “God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters.” Indeed we are specifically told of children that (Psalm 127:5) “Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them.” While the next psalm again says of God’s blessing, (Psalm 128:3) “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.”

It seems without doubt therefore that children, indeed many children, are a blessing from God. Therefore, the notion that we ought, as part of the normal course of life, to limit these blessing for our convenience is completely against the general tenor of the word of God, which never speaks of children as mere economic or social burdens.

Conclusion

In conclusion it seems that both of the common views are fraught with problems. The historic view because, while acceptable in much of its practice, makes the issue one of sex rather than of our attitude to children. This can lead to precisely the same problems as the more modern view, for it effectually says that it is fine to limit the number of children one has as long as one accomplishes this by abstinence, rather than contraception. This is tantamount to saying, “family planning is fine, as long as you don’t have any fun while you’re doing it!” In this case the issue is missed, it is precisely an attitude towards children as something you “order by number” that is the problem, not sex.

It seems a balance between the two views is required. Certainly there does not seem to be a biblical prohibition of contraception per se. However, it seems to be that it ought not to be used routinely, only at such times when a husband and wife prayerfully and hesitantly decide that they must limit the number of children they have. An example of when this may be necessary would be if the wife’s health breaks down, and she genuinely cannot cope with or sustain more children. Still, it seems that this ought to be within the parameters of viewing many children as being ordinarily a blessing.

By way of disclaimer, I am not insensitive enough to suggest that those couples who, for one reason or another, cannot have children, or can only have a limited number, are in any way unblessed, any more than a couple who have less money than another couple are less blessed. But this in no way should diminish from the fact that one way God blesses is by giving children, this is the clear teaching of scripture.

Finally, it is important to remember that as believers God also promises to bring out His Church from our seed. For he promises to establish his covenant with our children also (Genesis 9:9, 17:19, Acts 2:39, Acts 16:31), this is most certainly part of this blessing of God in giving children.

Euthanasia High Court Challenge

2008-10-02T23:24:00.004+01:00

I received an email this morning from Care not Killing. I have reproduced it below for prayer.

_______________________________________________

A woman with multiple sclerosis is staging a High Court challenge to clarify the law on assisted suicide.

Care Not Killing welcomes a full airing of the arguments, but warns that legalising assisted suicide would put vulnerable people at risk and make them susceptible to exploitation and abuse - a view upheld by the House of Lords vote on the Joffe Bill in 2006.

Dignity in Dying campaigner Debbie Purdy has progressive multiple sclerosis. She may at some stage wish to receive assisted suicide and wants her husband Omar to be immune from prosecution in the UK should he accompany her to Dignitas, the Swiss assisted suicide clinic. Her campaign bears striking similarities to that of the late Diane Pretty.

According to Dignity in Dying, formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, Debbie's concerns are centred around quality of life and dignity issues:

What worries me the most about my disease is that it is degenerative...I don't want to be forced to make a decision about the end of my life before I am ready to stop enjoying it. I want to wait until the last minute to decide if I can bear the facing pain and indignity I am facing.

Speaking in reaction to the news of the hearing, Care Not Killing's campaign director Dr Saunders said:

We need to be very clear on what has been agreed here. The High Court Judges have simply granted permission for Debbie Purdy to have a full hearing in court but have made it very clear that they are not giving her any grounds for optimism that her arguments will succeed.

We welcome this opportunity to revisit the arguments and are confident that the court will find that, in order to protect vulnerable people from exploitation, the current law should be upheld.

Assisting in another's suicide is a criminal offence which carries a sentence of up to 14 years imprisonment. The law is very clear on this matter and should not be changed. Changing it to allow assisted suicide would place vulnerable people – the sick, elderly, depressed and disabled – under pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death. Vulnerable people often feel that they constitute a financial or emotional burden to others and the so-called 'right to die' can so easily become the duty to die. Once a person has been 'helped to die' it is often very difficult to know whether there has been subtle coercion involved from someone who has an interest in a person's death.

Requests like this are thankfully extremely rare and hard cases make bad law. We must not legislate for exceptions and the House of Lords for this reason in 2006 quite rightly rejected Lord Joffe's assisted dying bill. There are over 70,000 people in Britain with multiple sclerosis at present and only a very small number ever request assisted suicide. These requests are virtually never persistent if patients' physical, emotional and spiritual needs are properly addressed. Our key priority must therefore be to make the very best palliative care more widely accessible and to get rid of the postcode lottery of care that currently exists in Britain.

We are concerned about Mrs Purdy's expressed fear of choking to death or experiencing excruciating pain because with good palliative care these fears are quite groundless with multiple sclerosis. The public is being misled over this. There have been great advances in the management of multiple sclerosis which have benefited patients and now mean that many with the disease live an almost normal lifespan. Mrs Purdy has had MS for 13 years already and may have many more years still to live. It is also not at all clear, given the type of illness she has, that she would ever need assistance to end her life, should she be determined to do so. This case has to be seen therefore in the wider context of an ongoing campaign by Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, to change the law.

The key issue here remains whether the law should be changed for the very small number of people who press for assisted suicide. Our view is that in order to protect others from exploitation it should not be.

Free Offer Equivocation

2008-10-01T13:09:00.003+01:00

The Free Offer of the Gospel is not a term with which I have the slightest problem. That the Gospel is an offer and that it is also a free offer, I have not the slightest problem in asserting. Indeed this terminology is specifically used in the Westminster Confession 7.3, “the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved.” However, sadly, I must number myself as an opponent of the Free Offer of the Gospel as it was defended by John Murray, et al, at the Fifteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1948).

I also have no problem when proponents of the Free Offer of Gospel speak of the two wills of God. For they are quite right that there is a Decretive or Secret Will of God and a Prescriptive or Revealed Will of God.

The problem is what they do with these wills. For at this point some dazzling equivocation is performed by proponents of the Free Offer whereby though they say that God has two distinct wills they in effect become one and the same.

To those who oppose the Free Offer when the term Prescriptive Will is used it means precisely what it sounds like. That is that which God has commanded, whereby we may please him. The Prescriptive Will of God means nothing more than that “duty God requires of man” (Westminster Shorter Catechism A. 2). This is the revealed will of God by command for all men to follow. This is to be sharply distinguished from the Dectretive Will of God which is secret and to do with his purposes in the world. Yes, there is a sense in which God both desires the salvation of some while also desiring their reprobation, but this is well understood by the fact that they are two types of desires. The one is His revealed command whereby we may please him, the other is the will which it has pleased Him to perform.

However, proponents of the Free Offer take these two wills and essentially make them the same kind of will, producing a paradox (which many of them seem to view as part of the proof in itself!). They do this saying, “Again, the expression "God desires," in the formula that crystallizes the crux of the question, is intended to notify not at all the "seeming" attitude of God but a real attitude, a real disposition of lovingkindness inherent in the free offer to all, in other words, a pleasure or delight in God, contemplating the blessed result to be achieved by compliance with the overture proffered and the invitation given” (From the General Assembly report (1948) submitted by Arthur W. Kuschke Jr., John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse). In this they have already assumed their equivocation: Namely that God Wills or God Desires always means the same type of will or desire even if one is only a seeming will or desire. On the contrary, to those who oppose the Free Offer God does not only seem to desire that all men repent, he really does desire this, but only in the sense that God has made it known that this is the only way whereby men may please him.

Proponents of the Free Offer usually do not even countenance this meaning to the word desire and thus they equivocate by subtly changing the meaning so that they demonstrate from premises that all parties would be happy with that God has two desires which are essentially the same type of desire and that therefore contradict. This equivocation becomes particularly noticeable when they quote the reformers and confessions in support of their case.

A Snapshot of my Life

2008-09-29T12:31:00.006+01:00

Recently I have been fairly active on my blog - by my standards at any rate. I've posted on various subjects, but I thought today I'd just mention what I've been doing...

I began at college/university, whatever you wish to call it, again on Thursday. Which was nice, as it's a day off from work - for those who do not know I work as a Trainee Quantity Surveyor and do a degree day-release.

Aside from that I've been working every week from 0900 - 1730, with various things related to Quantity Surveying.

Beyond this I've recently had to pay out quite a lot on my car. I've just had to spend about £230 getting a service (for a Proton Wira) and I've now got to pay to get it through the MOT on the 7th October. Added to this my cambelt is reaching the time of replacement and that will probably set me back a further £140! Cars really are awfully pricey things to run, aren't they?!

As a snapshot of my reading life, I'm currently reading The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy and Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification by Alister E. McGrath.

What else...

Hopefully once I've got this rather expensive month (Car-wise) out of the way I will return to my singing teacher to get my DipABRSM out of the way....

... I'm running out of even vaguely interesting things in my life...

... I'll be going up to Arbroath again on October 17th for the youth weekend conference of the Free Church (Continuing)...

... Oh and I think I might start keeping a diary, that would be fun, wouldnt it? I could even post (or even keep) it on here! Though I'm not sure if that would interest anyone...

... anyway, till next time!

True...?

2008-09-26T12:28:00.004+01:00

cartoon from http://www.cartoonchurch.com

Rev. Charles Alexander in an Unusual Place

2008-09-24T18:53:00.005+01:00

Sometimes we find things in the most unexpected places. Such an experience happened to me last night. As I was reading through The Diary of James Morrison by Professor G. N. M. Collins, the last thing I expected to find was a reference to the former minister of my father and grandparents, Rev. Charles Alexander of Liverpool.

However, to my surprise as I turned onto page 118 what should I find but the following:

'Where ignorance holds sway unbelief reigns also. Mr Alexander of Liverpool made a statement in our pulpit when he was here a few years ago that continued with me: "Of all the evils that have plagued us of late years, nothing has been more threatening than the unbelief, the positive heathenism that has entered our homes and our lives in temporals and spirituals everywhere."'

Corpus Clock

2008-09-19T09:53:00.003+01:00

Today the Corpus Clock will be unveiled by Prof Stephen Hawking today at Corpus Christi College Cambridge. Designed by Dr. John Taylor it will be the largest largest Grasshopper escapement clock in the world. The youtube.com video is below:

Bays of Harris, Sheet Music

2008-09-17T13:03:00.004+01:00

I spent ages searching for this, it's a good tune so to help others I've uploaded it! Though if you have a copy of the new Christian Hymns you'll find, in my view, a better arrangement there.

The Declaration of God in the Resurrection

2008-09-12T12:09:00.004+01:00

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." - Psalm 2:7-8

This Psalm refers to when God raised Christ up from the dead, declaring thereby, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." That this is what the Psalm refers to is proved by Acts 13:33, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

The attestation of God to the fact that Jesus Christ is the "only begotten" Son of God (John 3:16) is found throughout the Gospels.

"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3:17

"And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." - Luke 9:35

However, the Sonship of Christ is supremely set forth in the resurrection. I think that perhaps he sometimes forget what the resurrection was: the resounding declaration of God, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

It is certainly true that the Kings of the earth take council against the Lord's "anointed one", or Messiah. But yet against this God firmly declares in raising "the anointed one" from the dead that "HE is the Son of God" and declares him "Begotten". Of course this does not mean that Christ was in anyway not the begotten Son of God prior to his resurrection, for he says that even before he was sent he was the "only begotten Son" (John 3:16). Rather it means that in the raising of Christ from the dead, God declared in the world that Jesus Christ was Begotten. As Paul says, "And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4).

The sure decree I will declare:

The Lord hath said to me,

Thou art mine only Son; this day

I have begotten thee.

Ask of me, and for heritage
the heathen I'll make thine;
And, for possession, I to thee
will give earth's utmost line.

Thou shalt, as with a weighty rod
of iron, break them all;
And, as a potter's sherd, thou shalt
them dash in pieces small.

Now therefore, kings, be wise; be taught,
ye judges of the earth:
Serve God in fear, and see that ye
join trembling with your mirth.

Kiss ye the Son, lest in his ire
ye perish from the way,
If once his wrath begin to burn:
blessed all that on him stay.

Psalm 2:7-12, Scottish Psalter 1650

Conspiracy

2008-09-09T19:05:00.007+01:00

This quote is from Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum (pg. 288-289, Picador, 1990). I posted it on a forum I frequent so as I'd searched for it and typed it up I thought I might as well share it here as well. I think the point is fairly clear!

He threw open the shutters dramatically and pointed. At the corner of the narrow street and the broad avenue, stood a little wooden kiosk, where, presumably, lottery tickets were sold.

“Gentlemen,” he said, “I invite you to go and measure that kiosk. You will see that the length of the counter is one hundred and forty-nine centimetres - in other words, one hundred-billionth of the distance between the earth and the sun. The height at the rear, one hundred and sixty-six centimetres, divided by the width of the window, fifty-six, centimetres, is 3.14. The height at the front is nineteen decimetres, equal, in other words, to the number of years of the Greek lunar cycle. The sum of the heights of the two front corners and the two rear corners is one hundred and ninety times two plus one hundred and sixty-six times two, which equals seven hundred and thirty-two, the date of the victory at Poitiers. The thickness of the counter is 3.10 centimetres, and the width of the cornice of the window is 8.8 centimetres. Replacing the numbers before the decimals by the corresponding letters of the alphabet, we obtain C for ten H for eight, or C₁₀H₈, which is the formula for naphthalene.”

“Fantastic,” I said. “Did you get all these measurements?”

No,” Agliè said. “They were done on another kiosk, by a certain Jean-Pierre Adam. But I would assume that all lottery kiosks have more or less the same dimensions. With numbers you can do anything you like. Suppose I have the sacred number 9 and I want to get the number 1314, date of the execution of Jacques de Molay - a date dear to anyone who, like me, professes devotion to the Templar tradition of knighthood. What can I do? I multiply nine by one hundred and forty-six, the fateful day of the destruction of Carthage. How did arrive at this? I divided thirteen hundred and fourteen by two, by three, et cetera, until I found a satisfying date. I could also have divided thirteen hundred and fourteen by 6.28, the double of 3.14, and I would have got two hundred and nine. That is the year Attalus I, king of Pergamon, ascended the throne. You see?”

Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins

2008-09-09T11:22:00.006+01:00

Any proclamation of the gospel must begin with the joyful tidings that God has raised Jesus Christ from the dead, which joyful tidings David prophesied 1000 years previously by the Spirit, (Psalm 16:10) "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."

It must be confessed that no man can be convinced of the truth of the gospel unless he first by quickened by the Spirit of God, (1 Corinthians 2:13-14) "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." However, it was not without reason that Christ appeared to over 500 people after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6), rather it was to establish clear historical evidence that he had in fact been raised from the dead, for "in the mouth of two or three witnesses" may truth be known (Deuteronomy 17:6, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19).

For this reason it is important that we defend the gospel account of the resurrection in this way, as a real historical event. I am far from agreeing with everything N. T. Wright has written, particularly regarding the New Perspective on Paul, and I do not concur with everything he says in the article I direct you to now. However, he makes an excellent case for the resurrection as a historical event and it is good to hear our brother's thoughts.

Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins is taken from a lecture given in 2002 when N. T. Wright was Canon of Westminster (he is now Bishop of Durham).

End of the World

2008-09-08T11:07:00.021+01:00

The world will end on Wednesday with the first Large Hadron Collider beam, which will create a black hole that will destroy the world.

I will be out on the streets, dressed in pink and waving my "Don't let me die a Calvinist!" banner! See you there!

Idolatry and the Eastern Church

2008-09-06T16:54:00.006+01:00

The use of icons by both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church is well known. I have transcribed the relevant section of The Longer Catechism of the Eastern Church as it is found in Volume 2 of Philip Schaff's The Creeds of Christendom.

After each question I offer I brief critique of each answer:

Question 517: What is forbidden, then, by the second commandment?

Answer: We are forbidden to bow down to graven images or idols, as to supposed deities, or as to the likenesses of false gods.

It is important to note the qualifier inserted into the text here "as to supposed deities". It is, perhaps, from this that the thoughts of the proceeding answers flow. The Second Commandments actually says "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." The qualifier that it is only when we suppose the idols themselves to be deities that this is a sin is absent. Rather the commandment makes a blanket prohibition of bowing or serving images.

Question 518: Are we not hereby forbidden to have any sacred representations whatever?

Answer: By no means. This very plainly appears from hence, that the same Moses through whom God gave the commandment against graven images, received at the same time from God an order to place in the tabernacle, or movable temple of the Israelites, sacred representations of Cherubim in gold, and to place them, too, in that inner part of the temple to which people turned for their worship of God.

Their point must here be granted that God does not in the Second Commandment forbid the making of images of any sacred subject. Rather his command is that we do not bow to, or serve, them. His command runs thus, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Now if we take this to be a complete prohibition we must grant that God then commanded Moses to break this commandment in making the representations of the Cherubim (Exodus 25:18).

Nonetheless, the extension that the Eastern Orthodox take from this, that we may therefore bow to images also is quite without reason. For we must note that the purpose of the images of the Cherubim was most certainly not for veneration. Indeed the cherubim were placed in the holiest place into which only the high priest could go once a year (Exodus 30:10, Leviticus 16:34, Hebrews 9:7). Thus we can scarcely conclude that it any sense these cherubim were to be a visible aid to worship. On the contrary the command is absolute "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them," and there is no example, in the Bible, of anybody ever, with God's blessing, bowing to an object.

Question 519: Why is this example worthy of remark for the Orthodox Christian Church?

Answer: Because it illustrates her use of holy icons.

It must surely be plain that the cherubim on no way illustrate the Eastern Orthodox Church's use of icons. Above this is clearly demonstrated.

Question 520: What is an icon?

Answer: The word is Greek, and means an image or representation. In the Orthodox Church this name designates sacred representations of our Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, his immaculate Mother, and his saints.

Question 521: Is the use of holy icons agreeable to the second commandment?

Answer: It would then, and then only, be otherwise, if any one were to make gods of them; but it is not in the least contrary to this commandment to honor icons as sacred representations, and to use them for the religious remembrance of God's works and of his saints; for when thus used icons are books, written with the forms of persons and things instead of letters.

Again we point to the complete prohibition of God, which the example of the Cherubim does nothing to lessen, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."

Question 522: What disposition of mind should we have when we reverence the icons?

Answer: While we look on them with out eyes, we should mentally look to God and to the saints, who are represented on them.

To this we respond that in this they ask an impossible task of those for whom they are responsible. If the worshipper has his eyes fixed on the invisible God then of what use is the image? However, if he consciously venerates the physical object then surely it is extremely difficult for him to look mentally to God alone. Indeed God himself issues this warning to us, marking our propensity to idolatry, saying that for this very reason "ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire" (Deuteronomy 4:15). God specifically says that they saw no image because it may have given the Israelites cause to turn to idolatry (Deuteronomy 4:16-19). Thus to suggest that it is possible to look upon an image, let alone to venerate images, without falling into idolatry is contradicted by the very words of God Himself.

Therefore there seems to be absolutely no basis whatsoever for the icons of the Eastern Orthodox Church, indeed the practice seems to be expressly forbidden in scripture.

The classic text defending the veneration of images is John of Damascus' Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images, sometime soon I will try to write a full response to the arguments put forward there.

What is a Christian?

2008-09-03T18:00:00.001+01:00

I had to share this quote from The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce. Douglas Wilson quotes it at the beginning of chapter two of his new book Evangellyfish which can be read here. It is, sadly, so true true that I just had to post it:

Christian, n. One who believes the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

The Reformed Practice of Catechising

2008-06-12T19:00:00.004+01:00

There has been a trend recently to disregard the catechising of Christian Children (by which I mean those children in the covenant) and also the wider church membership.

What it means to Catechise is usefully defined in the Westminster Standards in The Form of Presbyterial Church Government under the section titled Pastors where Pastors are told:

To catechise, which is a plain laying down the first principles of the oracles of God, or of the doctrine of Christ, and is a part of preaching.

Equally the Catechism of the [Roman] Catholic Church 5 says:

Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life.

Therefore Catechising is not essentially something limited to any particular age group or to any particular format. Rather to catechise is to systematically teach the fundamentals of the gospel message.

This has always been a part of Reformed Churches. Calvin wrote the Geneva Catechism while Luther also produced Large and Small Catechisms which can be found in the Book of Concord 1580.

Equally when the Westminster Standards were produced a Larger and Shorter Catechism were included.

Those who produced the Westminster Standards clearly expected both Elders and the Heads of Families to catechise those under their authority. I will briefly demonstrate this below.

Firstly Elders of the Church were told to “catechise.” We have already quoted one example of this above, but we will bring it forward again here as the point we hope to glean from it is different. In The Form of Presbyterial Church Government under the section titled Pastors where Pastors are told:

To catechise, which is a plain laying down the first principles of the oracles of God, or of the doctrine of Christ, and is a part of preaching.

Equally in The Form of Presbyterial Church Government under the section titled Of the Ordinances in a particular Congregation we read the following:

The ordinances in a single congregation are, prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of psalms, the word read, (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read,) the word expounded and applied, catechising, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing.

It is clear here that the Elders of the Church are to ensure by the preaching that the fundamental truths of the gospel are plainly set forth.

Equally the Heads of Families are also told to catechise those who are under their authority. In The Directory of Family Worship 2 they are told:

The ordinary duties comprehended under the exercise of piety which should be in families, when they are convened to that effect, are these: First, Prayer and praises performed with a special reference, as well to the public condition of the kirk of God and this kingdom, as to the present case of the family, and every member thereof. Next, Reading of the scriptures, with catechising in a plain way, that the understandings of the simpler may be the better enabled to profit under the public ordinances, and they made more capable to understand the scriptures when they are read; together with godly conferences tending to the edification of all the members in the most holy faith: as also, admonition and rebuke, upon just reasons, from those who have authority in the family.

They are further told in section 8:

On the Lord's day, after every one of the family apart, and the whole family together, have sought the Lord (in whose hands the preparation of men's hearts are) to fit them for the public worship, and to bless to them the public ordinances, the master of the family ought to take care that all within his charge repair to the public worship, that he and they may join with the rest of the congregation: and the public worship being finished, after prayer, he should take an account what they have heard; and thereafter, to spend the rest of the time which they may spare in catechising, and in spiritual conferences upon the word of God: or else (going apart) they ought to apply themselves to reading, meditation, and secret prayer, that they may confirm and increase their communion with God: that so the profit which they found in the public ordinances may be cherished and promoved, and they more edified unto eternal life.

This same instruction regarding the Lord’s Day is reiterated in The Directory for Public Worship and the section titled Of the Sanctification of the Lord's Day:

That what time is vacant, between or after the solemn meetings of the congregation in public, be spent in reading, meditation, repetition of sermons; especially by calling their families to an account of what they have heard, and catechising of them, holy conferences, prayer for a blessing upon the public ordinances, singing of psalms, visiting the sick, relieving the poor, and such like duties of piety, charity, and mercy, accounting the sabbath a delight.

Thus it is without doubt that the authors of the Westminster Standards fully intended both Elders and the Heads of Families to catechise those under them. There is a particularly emphasis that it must be done plainly, that is in a simply way.

The Heads of Families are particularly addressed in the Letter which went with the Westminster Standards addressed To The Christian Reader, Especially Heads of Families which says in one place:

The two great pillars upon which the kingdom of Satan is erected, and by which it is upheld, are ignorance and error; the first step of our manumission from this spiritual thraldom consists in having our eyes opened, and being turned from darkness to light, Acts 26:18. How much the serious endeavours of godly parents and masters might contribute to an early seasoning the tender years of such as are under their inspection, is abundantly evident, not only from their special influence upon them, in respect of their authority over them, interest in them, continual presence with them, and frequent opportunities of being helpful to them; but also from the sad effects which, by woeful experience, we find to be the fruit of the omission of this duty. It were easy to set before you a cloud of witnesses, the language of whose practice hath been not only an eminent commendation of this duty, but also a serious exhortation to it. As Abel, though dead, yet speaks by his example to us for imitation of his faith, etc., Heb. 9:4; so do the examples of Abraham, of Joshua, of the parents of Solomon, of the grandmother and mother of Timothy, the mother of Augustine, whose care was as well to nurse up the souls as the bodies of their little ones; and as their pains herein was great, so was their success no way unanswerable.

The letter then proceeds firstly to recommend Heads of Families ensure that they themselves are not ignorant of the truth and then secondly that they also ensure this for their families. The letter says to those who refuse this duty as concerns their families that:

We shall only hint, what a dreadful meeting those parents and masters must have at that great day, with their children and servants, when all that were under their inspection shall not only accuse them, but charge their eternal miscarrying upon their score.

But what of the Bible? Is there are scriptural warrant for catechising, particularly of covenant children? The answer must be a resounding yes. We frequently read of the Church being commanded to tell children of the things God had done.

“And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the LORD did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.” Exodus 13:8

“Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons.” Deuteronomy 4:9

“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” Deuteronomy 6:6-7

“And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them.” Joshua 8:34-35

“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Proverbs 22:6
“And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Ephesians 6:4

Thoughts on Psalm 130

2008-06-06T12:00:00.005+01:00

Lord, from the depths to thee I cried.

My voice, Lord, do thou hear:

Unto my supplication's voice

Give an attentive ear.

Lord, who shall stand, if thou, O Lord,

Should'st mark iniquity?

But yet with thee forgiveness is,

That feared thou mayest be.

I wait for God, my soul doth wait,

My hope is in his word.

More than they that for morning watch,

My soul waits for the Lord;

I say, more than they that do watch

The morning light to see.

Let Israel hope in the Lord,

For with him mercies be;

And plenteous redemption

Is ever found with him.

And from all his iniquities

He Isr'el shall redeem.

From The Scottish Psalter 1650

Does not this Psalm summarise the Christian message? The comfort of every Christian is set forth in the second stanza (verses 3-4). Yes, we confess that if the Lord should mark our iniquity, our sin, we could not stand. No man on the earth can stand before God should he judge us as we deserve. Yet the psalmist goes on, “But yet with thee forgiveness is.” This is the sure hope of the Christian, that God will forgive the iniquities of his people: It on the basis of this that the psalmist comes to God.

Then proceeds the psalmist to explain this hope “My hope is in his word.” That is; the reason why the psalmist can rest waiting for God is because of his Word, that is, the promises of God to his people. Indeed the psalmist waits for God more earnestly than even those watchmen who watch for the morning.

Finally the psalmist closes by gloriously applying all that he has previously said specifically to the larger Church. He calls on Israel (the Church) to hope in the Lord, “For with him mercies be. And from all his iniquities he Israel shall redeem.”

Let us with the psalmist “wait for God… for with him mercies be.”

...Suffered Under Pontius Pilate...

2008-06-05T12:17:00.010+01:00

The Apostles’ Creed says that Jesus Christ “… suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, was dead, and was buried.”

Why specifically is the statement “suffered under Pontius Pilate” added to the statement “was crucified, was dead, and was buried” in the Apostles’ Creed?

Below I have included an extract from Calvin’s Geneva Catechism where he suggests one reason was that it proved Christ’s innocence. It is important to note as Calvin does that “Pilate pronounces him innocent, and therefore does not condemn him as a malefactor.” Christ sits before an eartly judge, is pronounced innocent, yet still dies!

I include the full extract below:

Master. Why do you not say in one word simply "was dead," (died,) but also add the name of the governor under whom he suffered?

Scholar. That has respect not only to the credit of the statement, but also to let us know that his death was connected with condemnation.

Master. Explain this more clearly.

Scholar. He died to discharge the penalty due by us, and in this way exempt us from it. But as we all being sinners were obnoxious to the judgment of God, he, that he might act as our substitute, was pleased to be sisted in presence of an earthly judge, and condemned by his mouth, that we might be acquitted before the celestial tribunal of God.

Master. But Pilate pronounces him innocent, and therefore does not condemn him as a malefactor. (Matthew 27:24.)

Scholar. It is necessary to attend to both things. The judge bears testimony to his innocence, to prove that he suffered not for his own misdeeds but ours, and he is formally condemned by the sentence of the same judge, to make it plain that he endured the sentence which he deserved as our surety, that thus he might free us from guilt.

The Meaningless Music Myth

2008-06-04T12:28:00.004+01:00

When I discuss the use of rock music is worship with people one argument repeatedly returns: that music is neutral and only lyrics portray a message. It is argued that as the music itself does not portray a message then, if ungodly lyrics are replaced with spiritual lyrics, rock music becomes a medium suitable for Christian Worship. While I do not wish to insult any individual who holds this view of neutral music, it does seem to me so clearly wrong that no matter which or what way I turn I cannot accept it as a principle. I outline my reasons briefly below.

The argument is put forward that a note on its own is essentially neutral, that is it does not in itself portray a message. Thus it follows a combination of notes is also neutral.

This argument seems to me so patently false that I can scarcely believe it when I hear or read it. To demonstrate this let us transfer this strange principle to another art form, that of writing. The individual letter is essentially neutral, I am well willing to accept that. However, to suggest that because individual letters on their own do not portray a message it follows that combinations of letters do not portray a message is clearly untrue. Yet, following the logic of those who argue that because a single note is neutral combinations are also neutral we must accept this in the written word also.

Such is the poverty of this argument for the neutrality of music. While I do not yet suggest that this disproves that music is neutral, it does show that the argument currently used is lacking.

However, let us move on to how our experience of music disproves the strange notion that music is neutral. Would one think it strange, I wonder, if a television commercial for a relaxing bath lotion featured the Dies Irae from Verdi’s Requiem? Of course it would be strange, because that piece of music does not portray a message of peace and tranquillity, but rather one fear and tumult.

A few years ago I took part in a fascinating psychology experiment. A group of us watched exactly the same excerpt from a lesser known Hitchcock movie (memory fails as to which one) twice. The only difference was the music that accompanied the scene. The first time the music gave the impression of a love scene, while the second time the music immediately gave the impression of a chase scene. Why? Because the two pieces of music portrayed two different messages.

I would submit that the argument that any music is acceptable in the worship of God because only the lyrics portray a message while the music is neutral, is not only a debatable argument it is one so unclearly untrue that those who hold it should immediately abandon it and seek other means to justify their use of music.

As a side note one suspects, and such tends to become clear in discussion, that those who hold this do not in fact hold the view that music portrays no message, rather they (perhaps unconsciously) merely hold that it cannot portray any bad or unhelpful message. Such arbitrary inconsistency ought to demonstrate sufficiently the poverty of their argument.

Psalm 84

2008-06-04T11:57:00.002+01:00

How lovely are thy dwellings fair!

O Lord of Hosts, how dear

The pleasant Tabernacles are!
Where thou dost dwell so near.

My Soul doth long and almost die

Thy Courts O Lord to see,

My heart and flesh aloud do cry,

O living God, for thee.

There ev'n the Sparrow freed from wrong

Hath found a house of rest,

The Swallow there, to lay her young

Hath built her brooding nest,

Ev'n by thy Altars Lord of Hosts

They find their safe abode,

And home they fly from round the Coasts

T’ward thee, My King, my God.

Happy, who in thy house reside

Where thee they ever praise,

Happy, whose strength in thee doth bide,

And in their hearts thy ways.

They pass through Baca's thirsty Vale,

That dry and barren ground

As through a fruitful watery Dale

Where Springs and Showers abound.

They journey on from strength to strength

With joy and gladsome cheer

Till all before our God at length

In Sion do appear.

Lord God of Hosts hear now my prayer

O Jacobs God give ear,

Thou God our shield look on the face

Of thy anointed dear.

For one day in thy Courts to be

Is better, and more blest

Then in the joys of Vanity,

A thousand days at best.

I in the temple of my God

Had rather keep a door,

Then dwell in Tents, and rich abode

With Sin for evermore.

For God the Lord both Sun and Shield

Gives grace and glory bright,

No good from them shall be withheld

Whose ways are just and right.

Lord God of Hosts that reign’st on high,

That man is truly blest

Who only on thee doth rely.

And in thee only rest.

John Milton 1648

In Defence of Orange Quarters

2008-06-03T12:56:00.009+01:00

When perusing the Daily Telegraph at lunch today I was hit with a disturbing headline that read Oranges lose appeal for busy Britons. Leaving aside the obvious wit of the headline, apparently because of the hectic pace of modern life people no longer have time to peel oranges and have therefore started eating more easy-to-peel fruit like satsumas and tangerines.

According to the magazine The Grocer the number of oranges eaten has fallen for the third year in a row (a fall of 2% this year). Simultaneously figures from TNS show that the number of satsumas eaten has risen by 35% while the number of tangerines has risen by 60%.

I believe I have the answer to the problem of the orange: Cut the orange into quarters and eat the inside. Is there anything more quick than that? No! Let us hope the saucy tangerine advocates will take this on board and leave us orange eaters alone!

- Image courtesy of http://pt.inmagine.com

Psalm 45:10-17

2008-06-03T11:54:00.002+01:00

O daughter, take good heed,

Incline, and give good ear;

Thou must forget thy kindred all,

And father's house most dear.

Thy beauty to the King
Shall then delightful be:
And do thou humbly worship him,
Because thy Lord is he.

The daughter then of Tyre
There with a gift shall be,
And all the wealthy of the land
Shall make their suit to thee.

The daughter of the King
All glorious is within;
And with embroideries of gold
Her garments wrought have been.

She cometh to the King
In robes with needle wrought;
The virgins that do follow her
Shall unto thee be brought.

They shall be brought with joy,
And mirth on ev'ry side,
Into the palace of the King,
And there they shall abide.

And in thy fathers' stead,
Thy children thou may'st take,
And in all places of the earth
Them noble princes make.

I will show forth thy name
To generations all:
Therefore the people evermore
To thee give praises shall.

From The Scottish Psalter 1650 (Another of the Same)

Baptist with an Infant B

2008-06-03T08:40:00.005+01:00

Perhaps the url for this blog requires some explanation. The term baptist with a small b was due to the fact that when I set this blog up I was a Baptist, but a very open minded one. That is, though I accepted almost fully Reformed Covenant Theology, I still maintained that only believers who had confessed faith were to be baptised.

However, after that time the already small b in Baptist became smaller and smaller, eventually being almost childlike in proportions. At this point I thought I had better redesignate it infant b due to its childlike qualities. Hence my current title of Infant Baptist.

It is rather embarrassing as an infant baptist to have a blog which seems to call me a baptist, I thus ask any readers I may have to bear in mind the childlike qualities of my small b and think of it as infant b.

Psalm 133

2008-06-02T13:05:00.005+01:00

O how happy a thing it is,
and joyful for to see
Brethren together fast to hold
The band of amitie.

It calls to mind that sweet perfume,
and that costly ointment
Which on the Sacrifices head
by God's precept was spent.

It wet not Aarons head alone,
But drenched his beard throughout,
And finally it did run down
his rich attire about.

And as the lower ground doth drink
the dew of Hermon hill:
And Zion with his silver drops
the fields with fruit doth fill.

Even so the Lord doth pour on them
His blessings manifold:
Whose hearts and minds without all guile
this knot do keep and hold.

William Whittingham from The Scottish Psalter 1635

Hypothetical Universalism and its Influence on Scottish Marrow Theology

2008-06-02T11:32:00.001+01:00

I went to the James Begg Society Annual Meeting Address last Friday evening (30th May) at the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) Church in Partick, Glasgow.

The lecture was titled English Hypothetical Universalism and its Influence on Scottish Marrow Theology and was delivered by Dr. Jonathan Moore.

Though the title may sound rather daunting, it was, in fact, a fascinating lecture that anyone who is interested in church history will find extremely interesting. You can listen to the lecture here.

I Attract Models

2008-05-29T10:21:00.004+01:00

I attract models, wohay!!!

... okay so I changed my answers round until I did ... and this quiz is a load of rubbish ... but whatever!!

What type of person do you attract? Your Result: You attract models! Congrats, something about you makes those model-quality people flock to you. This is good for obvious reasons - they look great, just having them nearby attracts other models, and it opens doors for you - like exclusive clubs and whatnot. If you are seeking pure physical beauty, you are all set. If you are seeking someone that is not cynical and slightly bitter about humans in general, someone focused on the human condition and intellect, then you are out of luck - but who cares, you attract models!
You attract Yuppies!
You attract artsy people!
You attract unstable people!
You attract geeks!
You attract rednecks!
What type of person do you attract? Quizzes for MySpace

That was incredibly shallow and immature of me, wasn't it?

4 Years of Blogging

2008-05-28T11:52:00.001+01:00

The other day I read over a large number or my entries on this blog beginning when I was 16 in 2004. With an inevitable degree of embarrassment I recoiled from several of my somewhat arrogant and immature statements.

I get the impression of a 16 year old boy who thinks he knows everything and is angry with the world because it doesn’t agree.

I hope that the four years which have passed have made some difference, though no doubt I shall view my current posts in another 4 years and cringe at the 20 year old sounding forth on divers subjects.

What difference have those 4 years made? Well I certainly know much more than I did then, but the more one knows the more one realises what one doesn’t know – that may be something of a cliché but it is absolutely true.

It’s like being in a room. One believes that that is all there is and comfortably one imagines a certain familiarity with the room. However, one only needs discover a hidden door, open it, and view the room beyond to realise that another room which dwarfs the previous one exists as well, no doubt also full of hidden doors.

This is certainly the case with learning. One gains a certain amount a familiarity in a given subject, but in gaining that familiarity also learns that there are a thousand other issues flowing out of and into the subject one vainly claims to understand.

A Confessional Overview of the Regulative Principle of Worship

2008-05-27T17:21:00.007+01:00

The Regulative Principle of Worship may be summarised in the words of the Westminster Confession 21.1:

“The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.”

We also find this in the Westminster Shorter Catechism Question and Answer 51.

Question 51. What is forbidden in the second commandment?

Answer: The second commandment forbiddeth the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his Word.

This is expanded in the Westminster Larger Catechism Question and Answer 109.

Question 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

What we find in the Westminster Standards we also find in the Three Forms of Unity in the Heidelberg Catechism Question and Answer 96:

Question 96. What does God require in the second commandment?

Answer: That we in no wise represent God by images, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word.

We also find warnings of a similar type contained in the Belgic Confession Article 32:

“We also believe that although it is useful and good for those who govern the churches to establish and set up a certain order among themselves for maintaining the body of the church, they ought always to guard against deviating from what Christ, our only Master, has ordained for us.”

To a lesser extent we also find similar views propagated in the Thirty Nine Articles Article 20:

“Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing that is against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce and thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.”

One must be quite clear here that I do not call on the Thirty Nine Articles as articulating a view of the Regulative Principle as most have come to view it, however, they do set out that, contrary to the Roman Catholic position, the church cannot impose anything not commanded in scripture as “necessary of Salvation.” This I see as a form of the Regulative Principle of Worship (usually called the Normative Principle of Worship).

However there is an important distinction between the Thirty Nine Articles and both the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity. While the latter two hold that God may not be worshiped in any way that he has not specifically commanded the former merely holds that God cannot be worshipped in ways specifically prohibited by scripture saying in the same Article 20:

“And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”

Indeed Article 34 says:

“It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly alike, for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word.”

In this the Thirty Nine Articles place themselves in line with the Lutheran tradition that in the Augsburg Confession Article 7 says:

“And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.”

However, at this particular time I wish to view the tradition as found in both the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. We began with these two and saw that their statements are almost exactly the same. Compare the statements of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “The second commandment forbiddeth the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his Word,” and the Heidelberg Catechism, “That we in no wise represent God by images, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word.” These are almost exactly the same.

Of these two I believe that the Three Forms of Unity are nearest to the Thirty Nine Articles for we find in Article 32 of the Belgic Confession the statement that:

“Therefore we reject all human innovations and all laws imposed on us, in our worship of God, which bind and force our consciences in any way.”

This seems to be closer to the view that it is sin for one to introduce as necessary to the worship of God something not commanded in scripture, rather than the view that it is always sin to introduce anything to worship that is not commanded in scripture. Note that I say closer, for the Three Forms of Unity are not, I think, in exactly the same tradition as the Thirty Nine Articles.

It is undeniable that the Regulative Principle of Worship has been worked out in different ways by those within the tradition of the Three Forms of Unity and those in the tradition of the Westminster Standards: I hope to demonstrate this below. Perhaps the observation above on the Thirty Nine Articles sheds some light as to how these difference came about.

An example of this difference may be seen in the differing views on “festival days.” We find these flatly condemned in the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God. In the appendix titled Touching Days and Places for Public Worship we read:

“Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.”

This is markedly different from the Regulative Principle we find given by the Synod of Dordt’s Directory for Public Worship, which says in Article 67:

“The Churches shall observe, in addition to the Sunday, also Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost, the Day of Prayer, the National Thanksgiving Day, and Old and New Year's Day.”

Such a view is also seen in the Second Helvetic Confession Chapter 24:

“Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly.”

The view put forward in the Westminster Standards is argued by some to have been put forward at the 1578 Synod of Dordt. However, it seems unclear to me whether the Synod held that “feast days” were wrong for reason of the Regulative Principle or because they believed it broke the 4th commandment. It seems to me to be the latter for the Synod recommended that:

“Nevertheless since certain other feast days are maintained by authority of the government; namely Christmas day and the day thereafter, likewise the second day of Easter and the second day of Pentecost and in some places New Year's day and Ascension day; the ministers shall do their best to teach the congregation to transform unproductive and harmful idleness into holy and profitable exercises by sermons especially dealing with the birth and resurrection of Christ, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and such like articles of the faith. The ministers of the churches shall do this in those cities where more feast days (than Sunday) are observed by authority of the government. In the meantime all the churches shall work, as far as possible and in the most fitting way, to do away with the normal observance of all feast days except Christmas day (since Easter and Pentecost fall on Sunday).”

The difference in application of the Regulative Principle is also seen in the practise of exclusive psalmody which was contained in the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God where we read in the section title Of the Singing of Psalms that only psalms of permitted in the Public worship of God:

“It is the duty of Christians to praise God publicly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.”

There is no mention of anything other than Psalms permitted in worship here. This is again different from the Synod of Dordt’s Directory for Public Worship, which says in Article 69:

“In the Churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, the Songs of Mary, Zacharias and Simeon, the Morning and Evening Hymns, and the Hymn of Prayer before the sermon shall be sung.”

I hope that the above evidence demonstrates the complexity of interpreting and applying the Regulative Principle of Worship. It seems to me that those within the Continental Reformed Tradition tended to take a rather less prescriptive view than those in the Scottish Presbyterian Reformed Tradition.

As many view John Calvin as the first to clearly articulate the Regulative Principle of Worship I hope soon to post on his interpretation of the principle.

Psalm 103:8-18

2008-05-27T13:23:00.003+01:00

The Lord abounds with tender love,

and unexampled acts of grace;

His wakened wrath does slowly move,

his willing mercy flows apace.

God will not always harshly chide,

but with his anger quickly part;

And loves his punishments to guide

more by his love than our desert.

As high as heav'n its arch extends

above this little spot of clay,

So much his boundless love transcends

the small respects that we can pay.

As far as 'tis from east to west,

so far has he our sins removed,

Who with a father's tender breast

has such as fear him always loved.

For God, who all our frame surveys,

considers that we are but clay;

How fresh soe'er we seem, our days

like grass or flowers must fade away.

Whilst they are nipped with sudden blasts,

nor can we find their former place;

God s faithful mercy ever lasts

to those that fear him, and their race.

This shall attend on such as still

proceed in his appointed way;

And who not only know his will,

but to it just obedience pay.

Brady and Tate, from A New Version of the Psalms of David in Metre 1696

The Need for a Father

2008-05-22T13:03:00.005+01:00

Yesterday there were several important votes on the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. One of which was on a proposed amendment the ensure that the "need for a father" is taken into account when giving fertility treatment.

Ian Duncan Smith, Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, led the calls for an amendment:

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which are in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I should explain why, in the amendments, we have gone slightly further than the debate with the Government over whether the word "father" should be in the clause. We propose to retain the wording "a father" and add "and a mother".

In the Government's consultation, they received an overwhelming amount of correspondence from the public in favour of a reference to fathers and mothers. More importantly perhaps, clause 54(2)(c) refers for the first time in the Bill to gay couples acting as fathers, and I believe that in the interests of balance, there should be a reference to mothers. We propose to amend the Bill accordingly.

He then proceeded to make an excellent speech which along with the speech by Patrick Cormack, Member for South Staffordshire, I include below. Unfortunately the amendment was defeated by 290 votes to 222. However, the speeches, were interesting so I've included them here (edited so that questions from other MPs, etc. are taken out).

Ian Duncan Smith, Member for Chingford and Woodford Green:

Since 1990 there has been a huge amount of research on the effect of absent fathers, demonstrating an increasing understanding of the importance of the role that fathers play in the home. That is not to suggest that if a family breaks up and the father leaves, that is simply bad for the children: research that we published recently, which was drawn from more than 3,000 evidence sessions, showed that the effect on those broken families is remarkable—75 per cent. of the children are more likely to fail at school, 70 per cent. are more likely to succumb to drug addiction, 50 per cent. are more likely to have serious alcohol problems, and 35 per cent. are more likely to experience some form of unemployment or welfare dependency.

The research highlights the fact that fathers bring something more profound to the parenting process, which has for too long been taken for granted. In some cases people determined that it should not be discussed. One set of evidence published as recently as 2007 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation states:

"Maternal 'inputs' are not consistently correlated with indices of their children's development once they enter secondary school, whereas paternal 'inputs' are so correlated. Indeed, there is an indication that teenagers' sense of self-worth is predicted by the quality of their play with their fathers some 13 years earlier."

The report goes on to say that that

"has demonstrated links between parental reports of father's involvement at the age of seven and lower levels of later police contact as reported by the mothers".

Obviously, that makes the strong and profound point that the effect of fathers on both sexes during the teenage years is important.

Something of which I had not been aware came from the research that we have conducted in the past two and a half years, and I should like to put it before the Committee. It was simply this: the effect that absent fathers also have on young girls. That issue is often forgotten. We always hear of the effect of a father's absence on young boys in respect of the whole issue of role modelling and giving them a stable beginning. However, in Britain we have some of the highest levels of under-age sexual activity, particularly among young girls, and there is very strong evidence to suggest that the effect of an absent father is to distort that further. That is because young girls more often learn empathetic and non-conditional love—something important and profound—from their fathers. They learn that it is possible to have a relationship that does not necessarily involve sex. We all know about the pressures that a young girl is under from young boys at such a time, and her relationships may have to countenance sex at an early stage. From most of the studies, it is clear that the absence of a base from which to understand how far such relationships need to go has a huge effect on such daughters.

The studies that we have been considering show consistently that such girls lose out in a way that we have not understood or even talked about enough. We know all about how sons need stable father figures who give them decent modelling, such as going out to work and having a creative relationship with the mother; however, the absence of a father is as significant for a daughter as for a son. The evidence on young daughters is also absolutely critical…

… I am not trying to paint a picture in which the simple arrival of a father makes a huge difference, regardless of what has happened with him. There are plenty of very bad fathers out there; there are fathers who are absent but arrive at particular periods and cause mayhem. We know about that. In many of the areas that I spend a lot of time visiting at the moment we see much of that. We also know about the problems surrounding those whom are loosely described as stepfathers, but whom we might call "friendly father arrivals". Such men are not related to or involved with the child, and levels of abuse can follow—not sexual abuse necessarily, but violence, possibly against the mother. As the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) knows, violence against women is at very high levels and rising.

We know all about those problems. I am not trying to paint some incredibly rosy picture. However, my point is that, on the whole, the absence of fathers has a detrimental effect on children; the vast majority of fathers are more likely to be positive influences if they are connected to and held to the family for various other reasons…

…The issue with regard to cohabiting is the scale of break-up. We know from the reports that have been done—we have seen endless reports and we are just beginning to get through some of them—that 50 per cent. of cohabiting relationships are likely to break up. One in two will break up before the child is five. That is an enormously high figure—the highest level of divorce for married couples with a child is one in 12. There is a particular problem with cohabitation, which brings me neatly to the Bill, because there is no recognition in it of family ties: as long as the people involved are considered to be "stable" or in loving relationships, treatment should be available. That is how the Bill stands, which makes it even more important that we introduce the recognition of the need for a father because we are dealing with the strong likelihood that cohabiting couples want to undergo such treatment, and such a change would act as a strong reminder to them, much as it will do to lone parents…

… To conclude the point about cohabiting parents, I suggest that it is the nature and the break-up of such relationships that put children in such difficulty. Recognising in the Bill that it is important for people to understand the importance of the father in a relationship can only strengthen their thought process as they go through this course of action and will hopefully act as a reference for them in the future. We cannot promise anything, but taking it away will have exactly the opposite effect. It is as though we are saying to couples, especially in the heterosexual world, that fathers are less important than mothers and that, therefore, they do not need to be considered. There is little research that any of us can claim one way or the other about outcomes for gay and lesbian couples. I draw no inference from that other than that we need more research, and I am sure that that will come in time. I—like everybody else, I hope—would want such relationships to prosper and for any child to benefit in such stable, successful relationships. I believe that the amendment would help and not act against that…

…The Government's action is unnecessary and they have overreacted—I shall deal with that shortly. Stonewall described the change today as a tidying-up exercise, but my problem is that, when one tidies up, one can also tidy out. We need to be conscious of what may be lost, and balance it against what may be gained.

Why do the Government need to make the change? Some in the gay and lesbian community will feel uneasy about the original guidance on the father, and they will have made representations. They will probably feel some unease about the amendment. I am sympathetic to that, but the key point is that unease does not mean that there is discrimination. To what extent is there discrimination? Is there simply a sense of unease that does not change any outcomes? The Government's position is that they need to remove the original clause, which referred to the father, because they perceived it as discriminating against gay or lesbian couples.

I was struck when reading the debates in the other place by the fact that the Government spokesperson made such an absolute case. He is not a lawyer but he made a case that would brook no opposition because, according to him, the original clause clearly contravened the convention on human rights and that was that. However, I do not believe that even the strongest proponent of the Government's view would go as far as that here. Even Lord Lester says that there is a strong case, but his published views state that the matter is confusing and fraught with contradictions. We must consider whether the original provision somehow constituted an abuse of rights…

… I have some other advice relating to other cases in which this matter has been raised before. For example, a 1990 custody judgment involving a minor featured this statement about the balancing of rights:

"The question was not where"

the individual child

"would get the better home. The question was: was it demonstrated that the welfare of the child positively demanded the displacement of the parental right."

That is the key to what we are saying. My view, and I believe that of eminent lawyers, is that this is a balance of rights, and in the end, in the case of human rights, the courts must place as paramount the rights of the child…

… (In response to Emily Thornberry, MP for Islington South & Finsbury, Labour) I do not think it discriminatory to remind people of the importance of the role of the father. Why is that discriminatory? Why does the hon. Lady want to introduce a Bill that is against the idea of fathers in any respect? … I have to say to her that that is utter nonsense. Those who signed up to the amendment and who agree with me are simply saying, "Come on, this is common sense." All we are saying is that we should take into consideration the need of a child for a father, not "If you do not have a father, you will never get treatment." We are suggesting only that that is considered. That is nonsense and she knows it; it is what is in the Bill that counts…

… All I want to say by way of conclusion to my hon. and right hon. Friends, and in this context my hon. Friends across the Floor who have signed up to and agree with the amendments is the following. I simply say that this comes down to the Government, to a balance of judgments, to the rights of the child versus the rights of adults, and to the importance of fathers and the demonstrable body of evidence regarding the effect of absent fathers on children and families.

We must balance all those considerations. Nothing is absolute. I am not for one moment saying to the Government that I am absolutely right; I am saying that there is a strong level of doubt about the Government's position. They need to argue the case in almost absolute terms, because it is they who are setting out to do away with the existing code. It is they who are doing away with it, not me. I am simply standing for the status quo and arguing—as ever, with legislation—that they must make their case and we will listen to it. However, the case has not been made, and I do not believe that it exists…

In regard to the way in which the advisory section should work, I believe that clinics should be sensitive to the needs of all parents, as I have stressed from the beginning. If they are sensitive, when the requirement comes up for people to take cognisance in this way, even gay and lesbian couples will think about it. It is a great prompt to allow people to think, "Yes, maybe we'll have to find some way round that. We'll have to do something". As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) has said, people will try because it is important. That is all that we want. We want people to recognise that fathers have a major role to play, and if they are not around, let us find a way of ensuring that their influence can still be felt.What is important for hon. Members tonight is that they do not sit here thinking, "I am right". Rather, everyone in the House should examine their conscience and ask themselves on the basis of the balance of this argument whether they are in any doubt at all. If any Member of the House has a shade of a doubt about whether to support the amendments, I ask them to remember that it is the Government who have made the case for stripping the provision out. We have not made that case. They are the radical proponents here, not us. We are arguing for the status quo. Anyone with a scintilla of doubt in their mind should vote for the amendments, and for the status quo.

Patrick Cormack, Member for South Staffordshire:

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) speaks with a degree of refreshing candour and common sense, and she underlines the fact that this is not, never has been and never should be a party political issue. I am as far apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), whom in other ways I admire very much, on this issue as I could possibly be from anyone.

I have listened to this afternoon's debate with profound depression. When I entered this House in 1970, if somebody had told me that nearly 40 years thence, the House would debate the need for a father, I would have thought that that person had taken leave of his senses. What we are talking about is the natural order of things, and I make no apology for standing up for what I believe to be the natural order of things. [ Interruption. ] It may well be that people can barrack, but I happen to be the first chairman of the all-party committee for widows and single-parent families in this House. We came together and founded that group in 1974 because we believed in helping single-parent families as much as we possibly could, and a very good committee it was, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) became a member of it after he joined the House.

Another Committee that I was much involved with as long ago as 1970—with the hon. Lord Janner, then Greville Janner, the former Member for Leicester, North-West—had at its heart the preservation and advancement of proper human rights. That was the all-party parliamentary committee for Soviet Jews—for the release of Soviet Jewry—and we stood for what we considered to be those human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that have now been so distorted, so altered, so extended as to cover a whole range of things that really are not human rights at all. At the root of the Bill that we are discussing this afternoon is the Government's realisation that if they did not insert certain words into it, they would be going against the Human Rights Act that we passed some 10 years ago, and which the House really ought to look at again. It is one thing to defend and advance the proper human rights that, for instance, the people of Burma, for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham stands up with great vigour, are completely deprived of. It is another thing entirely to extend and distort that concept of human rights, so that some people in this place are afraid to say—many outside this place are afraid to say—that it is a natural thing for a family to consist of a man and a woman who have children, and who give those children a natural and a proper home.

When I listened this afternoon to some of the surreal exchanges that took place, I could not help but remember the immortal words of Mr. Bumble, who said:

"If the law supposes that...the law is a ass".

We in this Committee this afternoon are responsible for the law and for trying, I hope, to bring a little balance into the law.

I listened with considerable admiration to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) when he moved his amendment. He did it with passion and clarity and with a degree of real modesty, but I have to say that I do not think that he went far enough. Although I have many friends who are lesbian or gay, I nevertheless do not believe that a lesbian pair of women or a gay pair of men can provide the same degree of balance, harmony and domestic comfort as parents of the opposite sex can. That is not to say that there are not many parents—men and women, married and unmarried—who are very bad and very cruel to children.

We are talking about families—the Government have even elevated the word "families" into the title of one of the Departments of State. If we are intent on promoting the concept of the family, why do we run away from the importance of the role of the father?

… There can be domestic problems between any people—of course there can. Within our own family in Parliament, there are those who have strong marriages and those who do not have marriages at all. We represent all sorts of conditions of men and women, but I make no apology for saying in this House that I believe that the natural family unit is the man, woman and children. There are cases where children do not have that advantage because the mother has been deserted. I suppose that I have as many cases in my surgery as colleagues do of women coming to ask for help with the Child Support Agency, and of women whose husbands have behaved utterly despicably. I have many examples in my constituency of single women who, with great courage and enormous sacrifice, skill and dedication, brought up their families. My cousins, twins, were 55 last week. Their father was so badly injured in the war that he died within weeks of their being born. My aunt brought those men up to be the fine men they are today. All of us can replicate that sort of experience, but in doing so and in relaying it to the Committee, we should not, out of a misguided concept of equality and fairness, pretend that there is an automatic right for anyone to have a child, regardless of sex…

…I am happy to hold to the view that no one has the right to a child. I happen to believe that a child is God-given… However, I say to the hon. Gentleman and to anybody else in this Committee that a child who is deliberately brought into the world with no desire that there should be a man and a woman as the parents is brought into it with a disadvantage. In so far as the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green goes some way toward redressing the balance in the Bill before us, it deserves the support of the whole Committee.

The 20 Weeks Campaign

2008-05-10T11:13:00.004+01:00

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will be being debated in the coming weeks. Nadine Dorries MP has launched a campaign to lower the limit for abortions of babies without disabilities to 20 weeks.

Obviously the best outcome would be to have this apply to babies with disabilities as well, however, such a campaign would be far less likely to succeed than Nadine Dorries' current campaign.

At the moment the best we seem to be able to hope for is a reduction to 20 weeks for "social" abortions. The title for Dorries' campaign is "the 20 weeks campaign" and the website is here: http://www.the20weekscampaign.org/.

There is an online petition on the website, facilities to send e-cards to MPs, as well as facilities to order actual postcards.

The Well Meant Offer of the Gospel and 1 Timothy 2:4

2008-03-29T15:45:00.007Z

1 Timothy 2:4

(1) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; (2) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. (3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; (4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. - 1 Timothy 2:1-6

The important text for proponents of the Well Meant Offer is underlined above. Here Paul unequivocally states that God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

Arminians and Well Meant Offer proponents alike interpret this verse to imply the God desires that every person on earth be saved. However, they run into a significant problem in this interpretation for it causes Paul's argument to fall down, and results in Paul joining unconnected thoughts together in the form of argument.

Consider Paul’s argument as proponents of the Well Meant Offer see it:

1) Pray for all men, particularly Kings and those in authority that we may lead quite and peaceable lives.
2) Because (For) this is good in the sight of God who wants everyone to be saved.
3) Because there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Let us turn this around so that instead of working from Paul’s starting point to his end point we work from his end point to his starting point.

1) There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
2) Therefore God wants everybody to be saved.
3) Therefore pray for all men.

This reduces Paul’s argument to the ridiculous for there is simply no causal link between there being one mediator between God and men, and the fact that God wants everybody to be saved.

Thus by the argument of the Arminians and Well Meant Offer proponents Paul’s statement that God wants everybody to be saved is not only irrelevant to the discussion it is also bad logic.

So do we simply claim that Paul’s logic was a bit dodgy, but still hold that God wants all men saved? Surely not – in so doing we discredit the scriptures and mock the Holy Ghost. If Paul says there is a causal link between the statements “There is one mediator between God and men” and “God will have all men saved” then there most certainly is.

Let me be quite clear that there is a far more coherent solution and one which does perfect justice to the passage in question. However, prior to setting it forward we must be first clear on what precisely the word "all" means.

Biblically the word “all” can mean many things, but only very rarely does it mean, all men of all times without exception. Usually it is limited by the context in which it is used. For example at the beginning of 2 Timothy we find Paul saying in chapter 1 verse 15 that, “that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.” Clearly, Paul does not mean that every single person in Asia had turned against him, and no one would ever suggest such a ludicrous exegesis. Rather he means that all of his acquaintance had turned against him.

Equally in the epistle in which we find ourselves and the 10th verse of the 4th chapter Paul says that, “therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” Clearly, Paul does not mean here that God is the Saviour of every single man, for he immediately contradicts this is the same verse by saying, “specially of those that believe.” Rather what Paul means here is that God is the saviour of all types of men, be it Jew or Greek, Bond or Free, etc.

I could go on and list a huge quantity of examples in the Bible where “all” does not refer to every single person of all times. However, I believe it to be so entirely self-evident that I will satisfy myself with the above two.

When approached with this in mind we find that the meaning of the verse becomes clear. Paul says that because there is one God and one mediator it follows that God wishes all men to be saved. Indeed what follows more naturally when understands that by all Paul refers not to all men ever alive in all ages, but all types of men. That is Paul states that because there is only one God, and only one mediator for all men, therefore God does not limit his wishes in salvation to anybody by their situation in life. Paul sums this up well in Galatians 3:28 when he says that in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

It is as a result of this reasoning that at the beginning of the chapter we find Paul calling us to pray for all men, by which again he means all men of all nations. Does this not suite the overall tenor of the passage far better than the misguided interpretations of Arminians and others? Indeed it is further supported later in the passage, in verse 7, when Paul speaks of this being directly determinate in his being an apostle to the Gentiles, “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”

Does not Paul put to bed here the foolish notion of any who may suppose that God only wishes to save the Jews, or the Poor, or the Weak? Rather Paul clearly states that God wishes all men saved, regardless of the position in life in which he has places them! Why? Because there is only one God. Not one God for the Jews and another for the Greeks. And there is only one mediator between God and man. And this mediator is the man Christ Jesus. Here Paul emphasises that Christ in no way mediates as a Jew or a Carpenter or as anything but a man. Christ is the mediator, says Paul. And, Praise the Lord, he mediates as a man!

The Well Meant Offer of the Gospel and 2 Peter 3:9

2008-03-28T13:13:00.025Z

Many who claim to be reformed today have developed a somewhat strange view of God’s purposes in election. They hold that while God certainly elects unconditionally for salvation (cf. Ephesians 1:4-5, “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.”) they also hold that in some mysterious sense God also desires that all sinners be saved. Thus they hold that God essentially has two wills, this in spite of the fact that James 1:8 says that, “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”

I must be clear here that I do not for a moment advocate Hyper-Calvinism, rather that which is laid out in the Canons of Dordrecht Article 8 of The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine:

"Nevertheless, all who are called through the gospel are called seriously. For seriously and most genuinely God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should come to him. Seriously he also promises rest for their souls and eternal life to all who come to him and believe."

Equally I would not advocate that one ought not to preach the gospel but rather support that which is taught in the Canons of Dordrecht Article 3 of The First Main Point of Doctrine:

"In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. For how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching? And how shall they preach unless they have been sent? (Rom. 10:14-15)."

The main problem most people have with the denial of the Well Meant Offer of the Gospel, that is the denial that God offers the Gospel to the reprobate in a way that means God genuinely desires his salvation, is that they hold that the Bible speaks of God as sincerely desiring the salvation of all men. Thus they conclude that though we cannot understand it and though it seems contrary to logic we must accept that God both desires the salvation of only the elect and also the salvation of all men simultaneously.

Such a stance is entirely correct and should the hypothesis that the Bible speaks of God desiring that all men be saved be correct, then we must accept that. However, I am convinced that there is not one passage in the Bible which when correctly exegeted ever offers the gospel to the reprobate in a well-meant sense.

Thus over the next few days I will attempt to offer what I would suggest is the correct exegesis to a number of biblical passages which may at first glace appear to contain a well meant offer of the gospel.

2 Peter 3:9

I begin with perhaps one of the most popular and, I am convinced, misquoted verses in the Bible. I include here the entire first ten verses of the chapter so that the full context may be gleaned:

"(1) This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: (2) That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: (3) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (5) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (8) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." (1 Peter 3:1-10)

The important part, as far as Arminians and proponents of the Well Meant Offer are concerned, is underlined above. For verse nine clearly says that the Lord is longsuffering, “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

The central issue at stake in this passage is that of our Lord’s second coming. The promise referred to in verse 9 is clearly the same as was referred to in verse 4 when Peter says that in the last days scoffers shall arise saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” Thus we find Peter here essentially dealing with the issue of why our Lord has not returned yet.

Peter goes on to demonstrate the ignorance of any who dare to suggest that “the Lord is slack concerning his promise” and culminates in verse 9 by saying that, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” In other words the reason for the Lord not having returned yet is that he isn’t willing that any should perish, but that all should repent.

To the proponent of Arminianism or the Well Meant Offer this is a clear statement that God allows the world to continue in existence because he doesn’t want anybody not to be saved.

Now before attempting to set forth a proper exegesis of this verse let me first note one or two problems with this interpretation.

This interpretation posits that God will not come till all people in the world are saved – there is no escaping this. Peter clearly states that the reason for the Lord’s longsuffering is because he wants everybody to be saved. This is entirely different from suggesting that God is being longsuffering in the hope that everyone will be saved, but one day he will simply lose patience and end it all anyway. This would be entirely counterproductive on God’s part, for his given reason is that he is “not willing that any should perish.” Allowing the world to continue for longer simply means that a far greater number will have perished than would have done had he not waited. Thus it would have been more sensible for Peter to say that Christ will “come quickly not willing that any should perish.”

In fact, by this interpretation this verse can only even make a semblance of working within a Post-Millenial eschatology. Only then could God claim that he has waited until all have come to repentance before returning. Thus this interpretation of the verse is immediately out of the question for Amillenials (my own position) or Pre-Millenials, and many Post-Millenials too, for it posits that God will not come again till all men on earth are saved.

Indeed it only seems to work for the Post-Millenial, for Peter speaks of God not being willing that any should perish. To suggest that God means "any" in the sense of “any upon the world at the time he comes again” is a contortion of the text and has not the least justification from the context of the passage. The text is dealing with people alive now for Peter says that he is long suffering “us-ward.” Thus this longsuffering is not something significant merely to end times but entirely relevant to those whom Peter addresses.

And therein lies the key to the true exegesis of this passage. In verse 9 Peter clearly says that the recipients of God’s longsufferings are “us.” We merely need to refer to the opening verse of this chapter 3 to discover to whom this refers: “beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance.” Will any doubt that Peter is addressing Christians here? Who else would be call beloved, and who else would he refer to as having pure minds? Should any doubt that Peter addresses elect Christians here they should view the first verse of the opening chapter were Peter addresses his epistle to, “them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

So Peter speaks to Christians and, by extension, all of the elect in this epistle and it is to them he refers when he uses that term “us-ward.” It is thus to the elect that God’s longsuffering is directed. Equally once we have ascertained that the “us-ward” refers the the elect is it not the most natural reading to read “any” as referring to “any of the elect” and “all” as referring to “all of the elect”? Does not this make the most natural reading? Indeed any attempt to twist “any” or “all” to refer to any other than the elect is a nigh impossible contortion.

Thus we learn why God does not come: It is because he has not yet fulfilled his purpose in gathering all the elect from all the world to himself. What reading is more natural than this, particularly in giving "any" and "all" their full force and weight? And what interpretation more in harmony with the passage and the rest of scripture?

Theophorus a Prophet?

2008-03-27T21:35:00.004Z

Certain Pentecostals and Charismatics seek to argue that Ignatius' use of the title Theophorus, Greek meaning God Bearer, is an indication that Ignatius was a prophet. Thus they seek to establish that the prophetic gift continued into the 2nd century.

I noticed in my reading of Ignatius today that he had this to say in his Epistle to the Romans, "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I am the very least of believers." This does not sound like a man who was writing as a prophet under the title Theophorus. Surely in that case he would have been able to speak in terms of commands and with authority.

Not that this in the least weakens the overall case for the gift of prophecy being present in the 2nd century. One needs only to read Justin Martyr, who wrote later than Ignatius, in his Dialogue with Trypho to ascertain that prophecy continued into the 2nd century for he says that "the prophetic gifts remain with us, even to the present time."

Nonetheless the appeal to Ignatius as a prophet seems extremely weak and indeed refuted by his own words.

I would note that the fact that the prophetic gifts continued into the second century need not in the slightest concern us as cessationists, indeed this is precisely what we would expect as many prophets who had experienced the laying on of Apostles' hands could have lived well into the 2nd century.

The Cosmic Ramifications of the Atonement

2008-03-26T12:32:00.006Z

Sometimes I think that we view Christ’s atonement too narrowly. As Calvinists we rightly hold to the doctrine of Limited Atonement and reject any suggestion that Christ in anyway intended to die for the reprobate.

However, though we rightly hold to this we sometimes tend to limit Christ's work on the cross to simply the reconciliation of elect sinners with God. In this sense the term Limited Atonement is most unhelpful, for on the contrary the atonement was entirely without limit. Indeed we see this in Colossians 1:20, where Paul says, “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.” We are shown that the things in earth are not elect sinners for the elect are listed further in verse 21 as “you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.”

This glorious theme of God’s reconciliation to his whole creation is further demonstrated in Romans 8:21-23, “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” Paul clearly sets out here that God work in Christ is not limited to the saving of elect souls but also includes the reconciliation of the whole creation to God, which was cursed for man’s sake (Genesis 3).

Indeed we see this even in one of God’s earliest manifestations of the Covenant of Grace, with the Covenant with Noah. God establishes his covenant not only with Noah and his seed but also, Genesis 9:10, “with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.” Let us not fall into the error of the Dispensationalists in supposing that this covenant is in anyway separate from the Covenant of Grace, for indeed we are expressly told by Moses under the inspiration of the Spirit that this covenant was a direct result of the offering which Noah offered, Genesis 8:20-22, “And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

Will any suggest that in some sense the smell of burning flesh appeased God? Surely not! Rather we see here as in all sacrifices, the sacrifice of Christ, and it is through this that God establishes his covenant with Noah, his seed and the rest of creation. It is thus entirely a part of the Covenant of Grace and entirely based upon Christ’s work of atonement and reconciliation.

Thus let us not be tempted to in anyway limit or restrict the power of the atonement, for it truly is unlimited.

Reflections on Good Friday

2008-03-22T16:17:00.005Z

The late Rev. Charles D. Alexander had these thoughts:

"That place we now occupy through what He has done - of the forgiveness of our sins. Think of the stain of those sins you've committed; that we have all committed. The apathy of our souls, the forgetfulness of Christ when we ought to have remembered. How slightingly we've passed over our reading of God's Word today. It is His Word and there was a sacrifice. Though it meant so much to Him it has meant so little to us. It has perhaps not brought from us today one expression to the Lord of thankfulness for giving His life for me. That we haven't got a mind, or a heart to feel after Him as we ought this day, let us think of this: the stain of our sin, the littleness of our attainments in grace. We ought to apply ourselves more and more than we do -to prayer and the seeking after Him and rejoicing in Him, in praising and adoring the name of our blessed Redeemer.

Somehow or other we are birds with broken wings, we haven't attained yet. We would like at times to soar into the upper regions of heaven and there attain to that heightened eminence and glory which God has planted in our soul. But the Lord help us, our wings won't carry us. Not enough grace yet, not enough divine awe under our plumage, but one day we will be set free. One day we will soar and we'll rise to the highest limits of divine glory, there see Him upon the throne we often have longed for and see that face, as John Bunyon says, 'which we have come so far to behold.’ There we shall see Him, whose name is Immanuel, the Word of God, and God with us. There in noble and sweeter strains we shall praise Him for what He's done.

We again think of that tragic journey which He undertook across the brook Cedron and up the steep accent of the Mount of Olives, who might be pressed out of measure in that garden with our sins and our sorrows, that we might not bear that load in all eternity. We pray the Lord will open our hearts more and more to understand that sovereign and glorious grace he has bestowed upon us. Amen."

A Workable Epistemology

2008-03-20T13:35:00.015Z

Modernism set man as the measure of truth and meaning. Science was the key to knowledge and through it man was capable of attaining all knowledge. God was no longer necessary for knowledge.

However, in the despondency of the post Great War world a truth became clear - Man was flawed: his intellect, desires and reason were all tainted. Man was incapable of absolute objectivity.

Postmodernism still set man as the measure of truth and meaning. However, unlike modernism it concluded that as man was the measure truth and meaning both were necessarily unobtainable. Meaning and truth could only ever be subjective and therefore applicable to the individual only. Truth was unobtainable, and to claim objective truth was the height of arrogance.

The problem was that the claim that truth and knowledge were unobtainable was itself a truth claim, thus postmodernism was reduced to absurdity and contradiction.

Against this despair we see a new epistemology arise – Post-postmodernism. Still in its infancy it is almost impossible to define. However, a brief attempt at an examination of its early epistemology is possible: It maintains the axiom that man is the measure of truth and meaning, yet seeks remedy the despair of postmodernism by viewing it more organically - truth and meaning are created contextually. No longer does the individual create his own truth, rather truth and meaning are created only as the individual interacts with society as a whole. As the Internet creates a global community this will in time create a global culture were truth is global. This rejects the absurdity of postmodernism that claims “one thing can be true for me while its antithesis is true for you.” It also rejects the arrogant pursuit of objective knowledge of modernism.

Yet objective truth still necessarily remains unobtainable. There must be a reality, yet as flawed beings were cannot know it. Though it attempts to hide it, Post-postmodernism still cannot claim objective knowledge and where its proponents do they simply reinvent the wheel by going back to modernism. Where they claim objective knowledge is still unknowable they simply maintain the underlying epistemology of postmodernism.

Both these epistemologies are unworkable and reduce to absurdity. Modernism exalts man above his capabilities. Postmodernism is the logical result of realistic modernism: the rejection of truth.

Indeed both epistemologies are one and the same, one is an optimistic view of man as the measure of truth and meaning and the other a pessimistic one. The fundamental starting point of both is man as the measure of truth. Both assume that knowledge can only ever be derived when the existence of the individual or the organic collection of individuals is the starting point.

This continues Descartes’ attempt to convince his Atheist friends of the truth of Christianity by starting, cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. This basis leads to modernism which as we have seen eventually leads to the disillusionment of postmodernism and thence chaos, absurdity and despair. The conclusion? Man as the epistemological starting point is unworkable.

From what basis, therefore, can we make knowledge claims? Must we always end in the despair and absurdity of postmodernism? Or is there a basis from which it is valid to make knowledge claims?

The answer is that knowledge claims may only be made if they are made on the basis of the knowledge of a being with infinite, and thus perfect, knowledge. Only infinite knowledge can avoid the limitations which post-modernism taught us ignorance necessitates.

Within this espistemology man is capable of objective knowledge. However, the only means by which he can be capable of knowing truth is if it is revealed to him by this one being, whose knowledge is infinite and perfect. Only then can his flawed mind be enlightened with truth.

All search for truth aside from acknowledgement of this being is futile.

We know that this being of infinite truth cannot be a part of the natural world and cannot have at any time began to exist, as then his knowledge would not be infinite for he would be ignorant of existence previous to his own. We must define this being as outside of time and the physical; necessarily metaphysical.

To have absolute knowledge of the universe and reality we must assume that he was not a bystander in the formation of the universe but rather an active participant, indeed the creator. We thus conclude that this being is that being than which no greater can be conceived which Anselm of Canterbury defined as God. We must conclude therefore that God is necessarily the only means of objective knowledge through revelation.

We finally see that the mocking of the Atheist at faith in revelation from God as absolute truth is nothing more than intellectual folly. His epistemology is one from which knowledge cannot be gained and which eventually contradicts itself. On the other hand the Christian epistemology is thoroughly consistent both internally and externally. Let us hope that the Post-postmodern epistemology will not remain as it is now, a perpetuation of the errors of Modernism and Postmodernism but rather a return to a more Pre-modern epistemology which is nonetheless informed by modernism and postmodernism as outlined above.

Arbroath Young People's Weekend

2008-02-19T15:09:00.004Z

On Friday the 8th of February I set out on an the 330 mile drive from my home in Holywell - North Wales - to Arbroath, a town on the east coast of Scotland. Mingled with a natural excitement at going away for the weekend I couldn't help but wonder why on earth I was embarking upon a 660 mile round trip for one weekend.

The weekend, primarily affiliated to the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), though also attended by members of other denominations, consisted of 5 talks; one on the Friday evening, two on Saturday and two sermons on Sunday.

I must admit that I thoroughly enjoyed the weekend, the people were friendly and unlike often on these weekends not particularly cliquey and all the worship was conducted well and biblically, which was a massive change from the normal quasi-charismatic welsh evangelical scene. Added to this the speaker, Gavin Beers, really was excellent and I can thoroughly recommend listening to all his talks links to which are listed below:

08/02 Friday Evening: Knowing the Times

09/02 Saturday Morning: Materialism: Is Matter all that Matters?

09/02 Saturday Evening: Relativism

10/02 Sunday Morning: Tearing Down Strongholds, 2 Corinthians ch.10 vv.4-5

10/02 Sunday Evening: Christ the Truth, John ch.14 v.6

I can really recommend listening to each of these. It was very refreshing to attend a young people's weekend which really attempted to get to grips with the underlying epistemology(ies) of this age rather than the more superficial treatment we often receive. That is not to say that other topics are not important and should not be dealt with, however, one gets the impression that often speakers and organisers are too afraid of scaring or boring young people to deal with more profound issues. I note that not a single person I spoke to thought the subject too deep or complex for the audience, on the contrary all were extremely challenged, indeed invigorated by the issues discussed.

Thus as I drove the 330 miles home I was able to reflect on a useful weekend and despite the distance one which I would happily attend again.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

2008-02-19T13:31:00.004Z

I forgot to mention in my post last night that even though traditionally issues of conscience are allowed a free vote in the House of Commons the parts of the current Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill concerning embryology and the role of fathers are going to be the subject of a whipped vote by the government.

There is an e-petition on the number 10 website concerning this at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/embryovote/ we must at least sign this but preferably write to Gordon Brown about this issue as well as writing to/visiting our local MP's over the matter.

Passion for Life

2008-02-18T23:13:00.003Z

Ann Widdecombe MP, Lord Alton and others have been touring the country recently in order to try to create awareness of the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which has passed through the Lords and is about to go through the Commons. Having heard excellent reports of the public meeting they held in Glasgow I had the privilege to attend one myself in Widnes tonight.

You can read about the campaign, dubbed Passion for Life, at http://www.passionforlife.org.uk/. If there are any meetings near you I would strongly recommend you attend them. If that is not possible then please read about the new Bill on the Passion for Life website and heed their advice and write to your MP about this new Bill.

While this Bill is intended for ill we must pray that God will use it for good. The great thing about the Abortion Act being open again is that the Pro-Life lobby within the Commons will again have the opportunity of attempting to amend the Bill for the better in reducing the abortion limit from its current 24 weeks, and getting rid of its limit of up to birth for disabled babies.

We have to pray that the Lord will take the proponents of this bill "in their own craftiness" and that "the counsel of the froward [will be] carried headlong."

Posting

2008-02-05T17:04:00.003Z

I've decided that I really should start posting more regularly. The problem is that every time I think of something to post on I think that I'd probably better do a bit more work on it first, however, this usually degenerates into nothing being done.

Notwithstanding that I really have resolved to start posting more regularly... and when I have something to say I'll definitely come on and say it.... so long then... till then....

Dakota Hadrosaur Embarassing for Evolutionists

2007-12-10T10:41:00.000Z

In my searching of the Internet I recently stumbled across this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7124969.stm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/dinosaur-pictures/index.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/dinosaurs/scanning-a-dino-mummy.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article2988373.ece

The find, thought to be an Edmontosaurus from the family Hadrosauridae, has caused a stir not just because of the fact that it's flesh and skin are still intact and fossilised. But also because it presents a significant challenge to traditional Hadrosaur Morphology - studies of the Mummified soft tissue have demonstrated that rump was around 25% larger than previously thought.

This further demonstrates the inaccuracy of the traditional approach to reconstruction of muscular morphology from bone and fossil remains. Perhaps we should bear this in mind when viewing so called pictures the morphology of early man reconstructed from bones.

While undoubtedly these skull shapes, etc. were significantly different from our own this does not mean that the structure of their soft tissue can be accurately known. As it is usually the appearance of the soft tissue which, somewhat illogically, persuades most people that early man was significantly less evolved and intelligent than ourselves this is a timely reminder of the inaccuracy of these methods.

As a footnote it is interesting to note that most scientists accept that in order for the soft tissue of this Edmontosaurus to be preserved it must have been quickly buried and fossilised in unusual conditions... do I hear Noah's flood anywhere...?

My attempt at getting £50 free amazon vouchers

2007-06-11T21:18:00.000+01:00

Flanders and Swann at their best!

2007-03-29T22:15:00.000+01:00

Not quite as good as when it's sung, but still funny!

The rottenest bits of these islands of ours
We've left in the hands of three unfriendly powers
Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot
You'll find he's a stinker as likely as not

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

The Scotsman is mean as we're all well aware
He's boney and blotchy and covered with hair
He eats salty porridge, he works all the day
And hasn't got bishops to show him the way

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

The Irishman now our contempt is beneath
He sleeps in his boots and he lies through his teeth
He blows up policemen or so I have heard
And blames it on Cromwell and William the Third

The English are moral the English are good
And clever and modest and misunderstood

The Welshman's dishonest, he cheats when he can
He's little and dark more like monkey than man
He works underground with a lamp on his hat
And sings far too loud, far too often and flat

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

And crossing the channel one cannot say much
For the French or the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch
The Germans are German, the Russians are red
And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed

The English are noble, the English are nice
And worth any other at double the price

And all the world over each nation's the same
They've simply no notion of playing the game
They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won
And they practice before hand which spoils all the fun

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad
It's just that they're foreign that makes them so mad
The English are all that a nation should be
And the pride of the English are Chipper and me

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

2007-03-08T18:58:00.000Z

Thanks to Suzie for designing my new blog!!

Hopefully, this new visual perspective on my blog will inspire me to greater productivity.

Well... here's hoping!

Surely some of the most mournfully beautiful words ever written!

2007-01-08T21:51:00.000Z

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land?
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

British Reformed Journal

2006-10-16T11:11:00.000+01:00

I am please to announce that I have been mentioned in the latest "British Reformed Journal." In an article entitled "The BRF (British Reformed Fellowship) family Conference 2006" I am mentioned in the following paragraph:

"Monday began early as breakfast and morning devotions ended at 8:15 so we could board one of two coaches, booked in advance, to take as many as wished to North Wales. A good number, including many of our young folk, rose to the challenge of climbling Mount Snowdon. Though the weather remained favourable, lack of time rather than desire meant that many could not reach the summit. I have it on good authority that Ben Lowery and Rev. Stewart would have made it to the top if they had not had to return to catch the bus for the return journey..."

At last my mountain climbing expertise have been officially recognised!!

2006-10-06T13:05:00.000+01:00

What makes a good story?

Is it the tale itself which is interesting? Or is the way in which it is told more important?

If I have a lyrical style of prose, but nothing of interest happens in my tale is it still good?

Or if my tale is full of peril and excitement, will it still by exciting if I tell it in a boring way?

Is art pleasant because of what it portrays? Or is art pleasing because of how it is portrayed?

C'etait un Rendezvous

2006-09-22T11:34:00.000+01:00


This is one of the classic films of all time!!

Baptism: Sprinkling or Immersion?

2006-08-25T19:38:00.001+01:00

Let me first clarify one point. That is that I do not believe the mode of baptism to be important. This is for a number of closely related reasons. I will, however, only deal with two.

Firstly, scripture contains no specific teaching on the subject of the mode of baptism. Faced with the complete ambiguity of the texts which narrate specific baptisms one would expect that if the mode were important there would have been some apostolic teaching on the subject. As it is, if we’re honest, it is impossible to tell what was practised on the basis of clear and indisputable instruction.

Secondly, and this is almost the same as my prior point – it simply puts it into perspective a bit more. If the mode is important, then if one does not get the mode right then one is not baptised. This means that a large proportion of the Christian community (whether the immersion quarter or the affusion/aspersion sector) is living in clear disobedience to God, because they have not been baptised (Acts 10:48). In the light of the fact that Jesus tells us that if we love him we will keep his commandments (John 14:15), would he really give us a commandment which we would be unable to certainly know we were obeying?

Notwithstanding this, it seems to me that the most consistent reading of the entire scripture would lead to the idea of sprinkling as the most likely mode that the apostles actually used.

I would firstly like to deal with a few Immersionist myths.

1) Many immersionists say that the Greek word for Baptise is only ever used of immersion. However, one does not need to look very far to see that that is simply not always the case in a biblical context. Mark 7:4 is one example, “And when they come from the market, except they [the Pharisees] wash [Gr. βαπτισωνται] they eat not.” Clearly the idea behind this is not that they eat not unless they immerse themselves, and it certainly is not meant in the way that most immersionists envisage baptism. However, even if one believes that the Pharisees immersed themselves one has a greater problem later in the passage where the verb for Baptism is again used. “And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [Gr. βαπτισμouς] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.” Can one really hold that the Pharisees held to the immersion of tables (or beds as it could also be translated)? Equally did the Pharisee in Luke 11:38 marvel because Jesus didn’t immerse himself? “And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed [Gr. εβαπτισθη] before dinner.”

There are other examples where the Greek for Baptism cannot only refer to immersion. Hebrews 9:10 says, “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings [Gr. βαπτισμouς], and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” We can be certain that this does not refer exclusively to immersion because we are told in the Old Testament that some of these “washings” or baptisms were in fact carried out by sprinkling [Leviticus 14:6-9, Numbers 19:13-21].

One can therefore safely conclude that the correct mode cannot be decided from the word itself.

2) Another favourite of immersionists is the idea that Romans 6:4 proves immersion. They argue that Romans 6:4, “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life,” clearly shows that the symbolism concerned is of burial and resurrection.

However, their position that their practice of immersion flows from this is wrong on 2 counts:

Firstly Jesus was not buried in the sense in which we are buried and thus the immersionist practice of Baptism is a needless imposition of our culture on what happened at Jesus’ burial. So, even if Romans 6:4 is talking about the symbol of Baptism, and thus, immersionists argue, the mode, the immersionists are still practising it in the wrong way by their misunderstanding of what happened to Jesus. Jesus was put in a tomb not buried under the ground as the immersionist practice insists when they argue from this verse.

Secondly, it is impossible that this verse is talking of the symbolism of Baptism. I will not here give an exegesis of what the passage means, suffice it to show that it cannot be talking about symbolism and certainly not in the way that the immersionists claim. If one reads the whole passage, Romans 6:1-6, carefully then one sees clearly that what is said of being buried must also be said of (v. 5) being planted with him and (v. 6) being crucified with him. Is it not a warped interpretation to take from this passage that Baptism symbolises burial but not planting and crucifixion? In fact the immersionist interpretation is impossible. Either the passage is simply not talking about what Baptism symbolises (as I believe a natural reading would dictate) or the immersionists are wrong in that their baptism of immersion does not also symbolise planting and crucifixion.

3) Immersionists claim that Acts 8:39, “And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing,” proves immersion because they came out of the water. However, clearly this is referring to their coming out of the water, not to their coming out from a state of immersion. This must be true for two reasons. Firstly they both came up out of the water, now as far as I am aware even the most diehard immersionist ministers do not also immerse themselves when they baptise others. However to say that “came up out of the water” implies immersion one would have to insist that Philip also immersed himself, because “they were come up out of the water.” Secondly, the preceding verse makes this interpretation logically impossible, “…and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” This verse clearly says that they went down into the water (this is the opposite of coming up out of the water – and note again both of them) and the clear implication is that after this Philip baptised the eunuch.

Many Baptists have realised the poverty of their argument here and so have changed their tack. They say that the very fact that Philip and the Eunuch had to get out of the chariot to be baptised where there was water implies immersion because otherwise they could have used the water that they would have had.

Now it must be said here that the immersionist premise here is very weak, and they contradict themselves. If I say to an immersionist, “maybe they didn’t have enough water to see to their drinking need and to the Baptism of the Eunuch,” they will almost always respond by saying that they simply would have been able to use their water as there were clearly reservoirs along the way and they could refill at these. However, the problem with this is that one must ask, “If there were many reservoirs along the way what reason do we have for thinking they had water with them at all?” Certainly there is no reason to think that they had more water than was necessary to get them to the next reservoir, (after all why unnecessarily weigh down the chariot?) in which case the eunuch would not have had any spare. In response to this an immersionist arguing from this passage would have to say that, “the eunuch may not have known where the reservoirs were.” The response to this is clear. If the Eunuch may not have know were the reservoirs were then what reason do we have for thinking that he would have been willing to use his drinking water for his baptism? If he did not know when he could next replenish his supply would he risk wasting what he had? Here the contradiction inherent to the immersionist interpretation of this passage becomes clear. Either the Eunuch knew where the reservoirs were in which case he would probably not have had water for beyond each of them in turn and would therefore have none for his baptism. Or he did not know where they were in which case why would he risk using up his water? In order for the immersionists’ argument to work they need to simultaneously state that the Eunuch both knew where the next reservoir was and that he did not. Thus they contradict themselves and their argument falls apart.

4) Related to the previous point some immersionists also point to the Baptism of Jesus as a likely immersion. For this they point to Matthew 3:18, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.” However, I would simply refer any reader back to what I said about the Ethiopian Eunuch to see that coming up out of the water does not necessarily refer to immersion, simply to coming from being in the water to being out of it. And as in the Ethiopian Eunuch’s case it could not be a reference to his complete immersion why should we think that it is here? Later we will see that a much stronger case can actually be made for Christ’s baptism by affusion.

5) Finally I will deal with an argument which is not put forward by most Baptists but which must be dealt with nonetheless. Some immersionists claim that 1 Corinthians 10:2, “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea,” is in favour of immersion. This is because the water on each side and the cloud above is said to be equivalent to immersion. First of all I do not for a moment believe the mode of Baptism to be referred to here at all. However, as I am only writing to show the faults of the immersionist argument I will simply demonstrate that if the mode is in view it is not immersion. Firstly, and somewhat amusingly, the only people immersed that day drowned and they were the Egyptians. Secondly, and more seriously, if any mode is referred to then it is sprinkling. Psalm 77:17 says, in relation to the crossing of the red sea, “The clouds poured out water…” In other words it was raining, is that not nearer to sprinkling than immersion? So in fact if one openly views the circumstances and seriously believes that 1 Corinthians 10:2 refers to the mode then one would naturally expect it to be referring to sprinkling not immersion. However, I suspect that most immersionists do not sincerely believe it to be a reference to the mode and will thus not be convinced from this verse that the apostolic mode of baptism was sprinkling.

Thus I think that it can be clearly shown that all of the main arguments for immersion are flawed and that it is nowhere in the Bible clearly demonstrated that immersion was the apostolic method.

I will now turn to what I believe to be more convincing arguments in favour of a method of sprinkling or pouring. I would implore my readers at this point to bear in mind that I am not claiming these arguments to be irrefutable and beyond question; as I said at the start I do not believe the Bible makes clear which mode was practised and I do not believe it to be important. However, I do find the case for sprinkling or pouring far more compelling than the case for immersion. Thus I wish to argue not for the mode which God prefers or which is right. Rather I wish to argue for what I believe was the Apostolic Mode for Baptism.

1) The circumstances of the conversion and subsequent Baptism of the Philippian Gaoler mean that his immersion was extremely unlikely. Carefully read the text:

“And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” – Acts 16:26-34

If we carefully trace the events then it will be found that it is extremely hard to get an immersion into it. The most important thing to be noticed is the clear implication so that even an immersionist would have to agree that by the end of verse 32 (“And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.”) Paul was still in the prison. This is implied by the fact that (verse 34) it was not until after the baptism of the Gaoler and his household had taken place that Paul actually went into the Gaoler’s house. Therefore surely the implication is that the Gaoler brought his family to see Paul in the prison. This is a far more natural reading than the idea that the Gaoler took Paul to one place and then ran and brought his family to the same place. Also it is a more natural reading to place them still in the prison because Luke simply doesn’t say that they’d moved.

Now therefore is it not reasonable to assume that as they were baptised “straightway” after this that they were still in the Gaol, and thus that they had not gone to some reservoir?

There is another consideration from the passage which shows the likelihood of a non-immersion baptism. I would draw attention to verse 33, “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Clearly Paul and Silas’ wounds were washed from the same water supply which they used to baptise the Gaoler and his household. Why then, if the immersionist interpretation is true, did the Gaoler wait until he had taken Paul and Silas to a reservoir deep enough to be immersed in before he washed their wounds? Surely it would have been far more natural for him to use the water which he would have had in the prison to wash their wounds. It seems to be incredibly unlikely that the Gaoler would have not washed their wounds before leaving the prison. And if he did wash their wounds before leaving the prison that means that he was also baptised before leaving the prison, which means that it is extremely unlikely that he was immersed.

2) Jesus Baptism was probably not immersion. I will proceed to justify that statement. In order to do this I will need to demonstrate that Jesus’ Baptism was his priestly ordination. Jesus’ Baptism was clearly different from the other baptisms of John. John’s baptism was one for repentant sinners. Surely Jesus could not be put into this category? The question comes up, why was Jesus then Baptised? Jesus tells us the answer to that question in Matthew 3:15, “for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” In other words in order that he may fulfil the law. Now what law was there concerning any baptism or anointing which Jesus would have to fulfil? Surely the only one would be his priestly ordination. This is further backed up by the fact that Luke specifically tells us in Luke 3:23 that Christ was 30 years old when he was baptised. Surely this is because Luke understood it to be his priestly ordination and was pointing out that Jesus had kept the law (fulfilled all righteousness) in waiting until he was 30 before his ordination (Numbers 4:3).

Perhaps even more decisive in pointing out that Jesus baptism was his ordination are the words of our Lord himself. In Matthew 21:12-13 Jesus overthrows the tables of the moneychangers and those who sold things in the Temple. The next morning the Chief Priests came to him and asked on what authority he did these things (Matthew 21:23). Jesus responds by asking whether the Baptism of John was of God or of men (v. 25). Surely Jesus was asking, though the chief priests did not realise it, whether or not his baptism or ordination by John was of God or of men. If it was of God, then he had the authority to cleanse the temple and it was an ordination of God as Hebrews 5 tells us.

Now how were the high priests ordained? Exodus 29:4-9 tells us that they were first washed, clearly by sprinkling or pouring, not immersion. And then they were anointed. Now surely if Christ were to truly “fulfil all righteousness” he would have been baptised in this way, not by immersion? As a note, in case anyone queries over whether or not Christ was anointed, he was clearly anointed by the Holy Ghost at his baptism (Matthew 3:16-17, Luke 3:22). In the light of this surely we cannot claim that Christ was immersed as then it could not be said that he had “fulfilled all righteousness.”

Now, as it seems that Christ was not immersed surely the implication is that the apostles did not immerse either, because there is no implication that Jesus baptism was any different merely as far as its mode was concerned than any of the other people baptised by John or by the apostles. They are all simply referred to as baptism. Now while we should clearly not maintain that the Greek word βαπτ ιζω always means the same thing in any context surely when it refers to baptism in the technical sense in the New Testament we are to view it as always referring to the same mode.

Above are the two main reasons why I believe the apostolic practice for baptism was not immersion, and was most likely pouring (affusion) or sprinkling (aspersion).

New Blog!!

2006-08-24T17:29:00.000+01:00

Check this new blog out!

2006-07-22T17:19:00.000+01:00

I don't know why I love this website so much! I think it's probably because of the address, but I'm not sure!!

Someone sent me some UBM pictures today - This is ME!

2006-07-18T19:30:00.000+01:00

UFO!!!!

2006-06-28T13:14:00.000+01:00

Ronseal concerns me

2006-06-19T15:08:00.000+01:00

I was doing some painting earlier today and, even though I wasn't actually using it, my thoughts turned to Ronseal. As a result of this I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of things about Ronseal which concern me. I'll just share a couple of them.

1) I have concerns about any company which thinks it is amazing when it is not lying through its teeth!

Let us just consider the Ronseal slogan, "it does exactly what it says on the tin." Well??? What's the big deal?? I mean, why shouldn't it??! Surely the aim of a company in saying its produce does something should actually be to say what it does??! Well, apparently not with Ronseal! No, they assume that ordinarily they'd be lying to you, and therefore get quite excited when they actually tell the truth. Now I don't think I'm being unreasonable in being suspicious of such a company, am I???

2) Ronseal encourages people to act illogically.

Let us just examine the logic behind the Ronseal claim. Well, surely, by being so excited about the fact that their product does what it says on the tin they imply that ordinarily most products don't do what they say they do. In other words you can't believe what it says on the tin. Now this seems somewhat perverse. What their basically saying is this: Usually you can't believe what it says on the tin, but you can with Ronseal, because it says you can... on the tin!! Now is it just me or is something wrong there??

Zoo

2006-06-01T17:29:00.000+01:00

I went to the zoo today, and I have to say that I don't think I've ever enjoyed it as much! I think the last time I went to the zoo I probably had the wrong attitude towards it, but this time I went ready to learn and ready to enjoy it.

You really can learn some random and interesting facts! For example, did you know that the yoke of a flamingo's egg is pink??

You know it was really brought home to me how ludicrous Atheistic Evolution is! How could such incredibly complex creatures be the product of pure chance? Of course, theoretically, they probably could be, but in reality the chances are so astronomical that if it was anything other than the only real way of explaining complexity in the universe, apart from God, then it would be dismissed.

Next to the elephant enclosure there was a notice showing some living "relatives" of the elephant. I must confess that it made me laugh. Now, I am sure that from my lay perspective I do not know or understand all the intricacies which have led them to this conclusion, but my immediate reaction to such claims is "what an imagination!"

It seems to me that evolution is a theory which the common sense approach insists is wrong, but that due to, complex arguments in favour of it, can never actually be disproved.

It reminds me very much of Kant's objection to the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Immanuel Kant's objection was that existence is not a predicate - that the property of existence cannot be applied to something in the same was as, for example, the property "red" could be.

Now this is very hard to argue with on a purely intellectual basis, due to the complexity of language. However, a common sense approach sees that this is clearly absurd. The classic response is that, by Kant's objection, the child who learns from her father that Father Christmas isn't real has learned absolutely nothing new about Father Christmas. Such an idea is clearly preposterous.

Similarly, evolution as an idea is absurd as far as common sense is concerned. However, due, I believe, largely to the complexities of language and ideas it is almost impossible to intellectually disprove.

Update

2006-05-31T16:22:00.000+01:00

Hey, I haven't posted for ages!! Which isn't to say that my blog has had no activity on it during that time!! For a while a went through a faze of not actually posting anything, but inserting rather pointless games and clocks etc. into the template. The game has actually gone now, as I was informed that some people's browsers couldn't hack it!! Which is probably a good thing as, I don't know about anybody else, but I found the music intensely irritating.

So what am I doing?? Well, I recently finished all my exams, all 18 of them - though two of them were oral exams, so maybe they don't count!!

Last week (the week directly after my exams finished) I slept in a Marquee in the College. The Marquee was the basis for a CU mission - they needed someone to keep an eye on it. The sleeping wasn't bad, and I think that overall the mission was encouraging. It's a pity that I probably won't be going back to the college again - though I do need to take some library books back...

At present I'm sitting around at home mostly reading and trying to find a job. Oh, and I'm trying to open a bank account. You wouldn't believe how hard it is when you haven't passed your driving and haven't been abroad!

2006-04-17T17:15:00.000+01:00

Does anyone else think it's ironic that people give aid to people with AIDS???

2006-04-17T14:24:00.000+01:00

A quick note: This is not a specifically Christian essay and the conclusion reached is not a specifically Christian one. This is due to the reason for writing this essay being as a part of a ToK (Theory of Knowledge - Epistemology) course. Thus any open Christian bias would have been self-defeating. However, I hope that it is generally supportive of the Christian position.

________________________________

Some people say that religious beliefs can neither be justified nor refuted by reason. However, while sometimes this claim is used as a reason for rejecting religious beliefs, at other times it is used to conclude that these beliefs are established by faith. To what extent is faith a legitimate basis for knowledge claims, in religion and different Areas of Knowledge?

In order to answer this question one must first define faith. A useful definition might be that which cannot be proven, but which nonetheless is absolutely believed. Faith does not concern itself with theoretical possibilities, but is rooted in reality. In other words faith, or lack of it, is not based upon the theoretical, but rather the likelihood. For example many people would admit that they cannot prove that anybody but them exists. However, this does not mean that most people do not ‘know’ that the people around them exist – unless they are solipsists. This was certainly the Greek view of faith. The principal Greek word for faith is πιστις, and the verb πιστευω, and is used of both religious belief and mathematical belief. This would be used in both the construction ‘I believe in God’ and ‘I believe 2 + 2 = 4’.

However, having now defined faith one must move on to the quotation which is at the centre of the question. That, ‘Some people say that religious beliefs can neither be justified nor refuted by reason.’ This appears unreasonable. By this argument, if one claims to have a religion, the claims made, no matter how farcical, cannot be disputed, as they have been claimed on religious grounds. This would mean that almost any claim made by anyone cannot be disputed because once this liberty has been granted for religious belief there seems no reasonable ground for barring it for any other worldview.

The other part of the question, that religious beliefs cannot be justified by reason, could also be said to be incorrect. It certainly seems true to say that some religious beliefs cannot be justified by reason. However, is not belief in God a religious belief? A belief in God can certainly be justified by reason, as is demonstrated by the plethora of arguments for the existence of God.

An example of one of these arguments is the ontological argument. Anselm formulated this in the 11th century and it is based in the idea of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived. What Anselm suggested was this: A being than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in ones understanding. However, if it only exists in ones understanding then a greater could be conceived. I.e. A being than which nothing greater can be conceived who exists in reality. As this clearly would be absurd, it follows that such a being must exist.

Whether or not one agrees with this and other arguments one cannot deny that there is some rational basis for a belief in God. Thus this part of the quotation could also be said to be untrue to a certain extent. However, it could be argued that what concerns religious belief in God, cannot be justified. This is because there is a difference between belief in God per se, on the basis of logical grounds alone – this could be said to be metaphysics alone, and religious belief in a particular God. The God which religion has to do with is a particular God. As a particular God can only be revealed by direct revelation, it does not seem to be objectively provable. Even if a person has experienced direct revelation this still does not mean that it can be objectively proven, the experience can only be proven to the person who experienced it. This is similar to the cogito ergo sum idea, in that it can only ever be proved to one individual.

The question then goes on to state: ‘However… sometimes this claim is used as a reason for rejecting religious beliefs,’ this also appears unreasonable. As has already been stated, while knowledge of God per se does not require religion, knowledge of a particular God can only be through religion. Thus to claim that a metaphysical belief in God is justified and a religious belief is not seems perverse. The mere metaphysical belief may satisfy some people, however behind this ‘metaphysical’ being there must be a particular God. To suggest that it is wrong to try to discover this particular God seems inane.

The question continues with, ‘at other times it is used to conclude that these beliefs are established by faith.’ While this certainly seems to be a viable conclusion, it does not however indicate whether or not this is a good thing, which is why the final section of the question comes in: ‘To what extent is faith a legitimate basis for knowledge claims, in religion and different Areas of Knowledge?’ This has already been partly answered in the previous paragraph. However, what about the other areas of knowledge?

Scientific claims to knowledge almost all contain an element of faith. Underlying this is the axiomatic assumption that the world can be understood. However, some areas of ‘science’ require a greater amount of faith than others. Cosmology, for example, is inherently improvable. Take the ‘cosmological principle’ which is the basis for almost all cosmological theory. The cosmological principle states that ‘viewed on a sufficiently large scale there are no preferred places or directions in the universe.’ This is based on the fact that the universe appears remarkably isotropic from our position in it. Now there are two major questions to be raised here. First is that this seems to postulate that the universe is infinite; if it wasn’t then the edge would have to be different from another part. Until there is any evidence that an actual infinite can exist this seems a reasonable objection to it. The other main objection is that if the earth is at, or very near, the centre of the universe and there are a series of ‘orbital spheres’ around this, then common sense would suggest that the universe should appear isotropic from our vantage point. My point here in not to say that the cosmological principle is untrue, rather what I am demonstrating is that, beyond science which we can actually observe and repeat, a lot of science (particularly in the realm of cosmology) is inherently improvable, and often cannot be disproved – because most cosmological models can be changed slightly to fit any new data. In fact, they could be argued to be ad hoc as Karl Popper would have said. Thus it appears apparent that much of what is termed science is also based on a type of faith. In fact, almost all data apart from that which can be scientifically repeated (eg. A chemical reaction) can be interpreted to support a range of theories. Actually most reasonable cosmologists expect that none of the cosmological models of today is the correct one.

To return to the question, is this type of faith a legitimate basis for knowledge claims? Again it seems to be reasonable to claim that it is. Who would claim that because we cannot completely prove the nature of our universe that we are not to theorise and try to discover the best model? However, with a return to our definition of faith, it does seem unreasonable to claim faith in this area. For a scientist to claim that he knows the exact cosmological model of the universe, would probably be a rather pompous as well as almost certainly untrue! This is obviously different from religious faith. Adherents to a religion claim to have knowledge of their God by personal experience. Strange as it may seem this is perhaps a more solid basis for knowledge claims than improvable scientific observations about the nature of the universe. Perhaps the correct religion (if there is one) can only be proven by accepting it. However, merely insofar as cosmologists make tentative knowledge claims there cannot be anything illegitimate about it. What seems unreasonable is when they claim absolute knowledge. Richard Dawkins, for example, in his television series ‘the root of all evil’ seems to show that for him Atheism and ‘Evolution’ are a religion. He cannot claim to know this from personal experience, or from scientific research. Thus it would appear that those knowledge claims are unreasonable.

Another area of knowledge is history. This area certainly seems to involve faith. When I make any statement about the past that is outside my own experience, or of which I have not seen irrefutable evidence, I cannot prove objectively that it has happened. This is the case for everyone. Therefore whenever anyone makes a statement about some event in the past having happened they do so in faith. However, would anyone really question that the Second World War actually happened? The idea that there has been a massive conspiracy by a whole generation to deceive, requires a far greater amount of faith. Also, to live in a world were nobody really believes anyone, (i.e. has faith in anyone) would probably be unbearable. Thus while faith certainly has a role to play in History it seems to be necessary for happiness, and could therefore be argued to be a good thing.

In conclusion, it seems clear that all areas of knowledge require an element of faith. To what extent this faith is reasonable would seem to depend on reason. When a person has faith in a religion that is irrefutably logically absurd, then perhaps their faith is not legitimate. However, if there is no reasoned objection to their belief how can we know whether or not it is true if we have never had any contrary or similar religious experience? Science is somewhat different, while the fundamental axioms of science could in fact be argued to not really be a part of faith (as they are supposedly self-evident), absolute faith in an improvable theory – purely on scientific grounds – does not seem reasonable. Faith in the Area of History seems not only legitimate but necessary. Can people be happy when they do not know whether to believe the testament of anybody? It seems that even if it is not reasonable to have faith in the area of history, it would be preferable to have it purely on the grounds of greater felicity!

2005-07-29T23:01:00.000+01:00

When blogging it is very easy to write something which is interesting to one's self and nobody else. Or, it is even easier to write about something which is not interesting to one's self and even less interesting to everybody else!

For example, I could write about work today or driving lessons. I would have plenty to say about both. However, I am enough of a realist to be aware that nobody at all really wants to know how I almost killed my driving instructor or how I smashed a cup in work!

Therefore I am left with a few options when my mind turns to blogging.

1, I blog about my own boring life and lose any readers I had.

2, I don't blog and still lose readers.

3, I blog some large ramble about animals thinking, or something, and lose readers again.

Thus, I think it would be fair to say that I am in a lose/lose situation.

2005-07-22T09:43:00.000+01:00

We're not afraid!!!

Internets

2005-07-20T18:08:00.000+01:00

The internet wasn't working on my computer for a while today. I had reason to believe that it was the firewall on 'Norton' that was blocking it. So, I spent quite a long time changing the settings on that to allow AOL to operate. However, it was to no avail.

Anyway, after a while I noticed that one of the boxes (not the modem another one to do with the wireless or something) was turned off. I turned it on and it worked. How annoying is that?

Turns out that my Dad turned the 'SurgeMaster' off last night because the noise the Music Centre was making was annoying him. He forgot to mention this when we were trying to work out what was wrong with the computer.

Well, I've had my rant. I'll think of something interesting to post on tomorrow.

Lawnmowers

2005-07-15T14:56:00.000+01:00

I've just been mowing the lawn. Nothing remarkable about that you say. Right. What is remarkable is my lawnmower.

Now most lawnmowers, in my experience, cut something like scissors. I mean, if the lawn was hair and you took it to the barber's, then the result would probably be similar to if you just cut it with a lawnmower.

This is where my lawnmower is exceptional and annoying. For the result which my mower gives is similar to the result gained when the barber/hairdresser uses thinning scissors. You know the type, like normal scissors only one blade is a comb, that they use to thin your hair.

This means that the result of my mowing of the lawn is of a generally cut area, with longer pieces of grass sticking up intermittently.

New Blog

2005-07-14T16:18:00.000+01:00

Have a look at 'my' new blog.

I haven't taken all the mistakes out yet. And I haven't added all the articles yet.

2005-07-04T10:03:00.000+01:00

I haven't posted for a while, but I thought I would in order to share a witty comment I came up with yesterday. On the subject of worldliness I said:

'We are to be engaged with the world, but not engaged to it.'

I'm not being bigheaded here by the way, I just thought it was quite amusing.

2005-06-20T20:43:00.000+01:00

This is a good site!

Cool Comment

2005-06-11T20:19:00.000+01:00

"It's difficult to argue with a nihilist. But it's even more difficult for a nihilist to argue."

2005-06-10T21:48:00.000+01:00

One of the classic games.

This was in the paper.

2005-06-07T20:24:00.000+01:00

Apparently there is a formula for good comedies. It is:

C = [(R x D) + V] x F/A + S

Where, R is the recognisable qualities of the main character and D their delusions of grandeur. V is the verbal wit of the script. F is the amount that somebody falls over. A is the success of any scheme carried out by the characters. The differece in social status between the characters is S. And C is the overall comedic value.

Piano Teachers

2005-06-03T16:15:00.000+01:00

I had a debate with my piano teacher today about stress notes, or apex notes, or whatever one wishes to call them.

The contention was this; my teacher held the orthodox view that one should always aim for the longest phrases. In this I agreed with him. However, I pointed out, if one splits the phrase into two and puts the stress on the penultimate note in each phrase then the dynamic picture is far more consistent with the rest of the piece. For, only a few bars away, though heavily disguised, are notes of a similar rhythmic and tonal feel to the ones disputed, and on these it is indisputable that the stress should go on the first note (it must be understood that they are only similar to the last two notes of each phrase in the first case, and the first two notes in the second. Thus on these new notes it will be he first note). Thus, I pointed out, in favour of overall consistency in the piece my method ought to be adopted.

My case was not, however, helped by the fact that the music text favoured my teacher's idea, and, he pointed out, while my point may well be valid, I may well be penalised in the exam for ignoring the dynamics set in the manuscript.

Thus I am undecided as to which course to follow.

I am not really sure how much sense this makes, having to describe an unseen manuscript here is quite difficult.

I love this guy's logic!

2005-06-02T09:47:00.000+01:00

" And if anyone knows anything about anything,"said Bear to himself, " it's Owl who knows something about something,"he said, " or my name's not Winnie-the-Pooh,"he said. " Which it is," he added. " So there you are."

A. A. Milne

2005-05-28T15:43:00.000+01:00

I think I'd better post something about Liverpool winning the European Cup for the fifth time.
At half time I was resigned by full time I was reclined (fainted because of stess!). I thought that was quite neat.

A bit like what I said the other day on the subject of whether two people should get married, whether they are both Christians or not, as soon as any act of fornication has taken place. I said that, 'concerning marriage the Bible teaches consummation not consecration.' I thought this was rather witty.

NOT that I'm saying people shouldn't get married or anything, I simply mean that biblically what makes two people one flesh is not a ceremony. Hence, in the Old Testament, if a woman was raped, and neither her nor the man were married, they were legally bound to marry each other.

Is God the author of evil?

2005-05-19T06:31:00.000+01:00

It is ludicrous to claim that God is the 'author' of evil, as evil existed prior to creation, though as yet unexpressed.

Because:

God is good, (Mark 10:18)
God is unchangeable
Thus God has always been good.

Good is inherently a comparison of Evil
Thus where good exists as a concept of evil must also exist
Thus as good has always existed, evil though never expressed also has always existed.

Therefore as evil existed prior to creation yet was not part of the nature of God (God has always been good) God cannot be said to be the author of it.

I am in a cave hidden from all light. If I chisel through the wall and let the light in I am not the author of that light (as it existed beforehand), I have merely allowed it to be manifested. Similarly because God allowed, indeed ordained, for evil to be manifested, as part of his overall plan for glorifying himself, does not mean that he was the author of it.

Broadband

2005-05-18T11:35:00.000+01:00

We've just updated to AOL Broadband.
The good thing about Broadband is that one can be on the internet all day without having to be worried about the phone being permanently engaged.

I'll try to think of something interesting to post this evening.

1 Corinthians 13

2005-05-11T20:22:00.000+01:00

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

There are two main interpretations of this passage. One says that the 'seeing through a glass darkly' period is earth, while the 'face to face,' will be heaven. The other says that these two states refer to the church in her infant, and then her mature state.

The second of these views, if correct, is one of the strongest passages in favour of the Cessationist argument. If the first is correct however, then it can actually be used to argue against Cessationism. If the distinction made in this passage is between earth and heaven, then we are to expect the gifts of tongues and prophecy to continue until the end of the world.

For, all the comparisons are made as being either on one or on the other side of one barrier - whether earth/heaven or infant church/mature church.

They can be divided as:

First side of barrier; Charity, Faith, Hope, Tongues, Prophecy.

Second side of barrier; Charity, Faith, Hope. (I include the latter two as the 'now' in verse 13 has only Charity, Faith and Hope. Thus it cannot be the first side of the barrier).

If the division is Earth/Heaven then Cessationism is flawed. If, however, the division is Infant Church/Mature Church, then it is definitive evidence for Cessationism.

We are told that Faith and Hope will be present on this second side of the barrier. Hebrews 11:1 tells us that, 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'

In the light of this biblical definition of faith, it is preposterous to suggest that the division is Earth/Heaven. How in heaven can we need 'evidence of things not seen.'

Therefore the Infant Church/Mature Church interpretation must be correct. Ergo Cessationism is upheld.

Exams bad for grandmother's health

2005-05-09T19:01:00.000+01:00

This is an interesting article.

I thought this was quite funny...

2005-05-07T15:18:00.000+01:00

40 Tips for proper English

1. Avoid alliteration. Always.
2. Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
4. Employ the vernacular.
5. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
6. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.
7. Remember to never split an infinitive.
8. Contractions aren't necessary.
9. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
10. One should never generalize.
11. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
12. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
13. Don't be redundant; don't use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
14. Be more or less specific.
15. Understatement is always best.
16. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
17. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
18. The passive voice is to be avoided.
19. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
20. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
21. Who needs rhetorical questions?
22. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
23. Don't never use a double negation.
24. capitalize every sentence and remember always end it with point
25. Do not put statements in the negative form.
26. Verbs have to agree with their subjects.
27. Proofread carefully to see if you words out.
28. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
29. A writer must not shift your point of view.
30. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction. (Remember, too, a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence with.)
31. Don't overuse exclamation marks!!
32. Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.
33. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
34. If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
35. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
36. Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
37. Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
38. Always pick on the correct idiom.
39. The adverb always follows the verb.
40. Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; They're old hat; seek viable alternatives.

I received this is an e-mail

2005-05-04T20:29:00.000+01:00

It is time to elect the world leader and yours is the deciding vote. Here are the facts about the three candidates:
Candidate A: He associates with crooked politicians and consults with astrologers. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks up to ten Martinis a day.
Candidate B: He was ejected from office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks large amounts of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extra-marital affairs.
Okay, got your answers?

I've posted the answers as a Comment

Anagrams

2005-05-02T17:16:00.000+01:00

I keep thinking it's Saturday.

'To be or not to be: that is the question, whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.'

Is an anagram of:

'In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten.'

Salvation of infants who die previous to birth.

2005-04-27T12:18:00.000+01:00

There is a worrying argument that many people are using to argue that all children who die before or during birth are all saved.

The argument that they use is that, 'they can't be sent to hell because they haven't sinned yet.'

This argument may at first appear to be reasonable.

However this argument is based on a semi-pelagian view that original sin is not damning in itself. If we look at the implications they are massive. As Martin Luther said, 'A painted Sinner has only a painted Savior' (I think it was that). In other words if the person had nothing to be saved from, we can say that they reached heaven as a result of there own works. As a result of a life of sinless perfection.

When looked at like this it is easy to what a dangerous heresy those few, apparently harmless, words can lead to.

2005-04-25T20:18:00.000+01:00

I need to find some good blogging inspiration.

2005-04-20T19:32:00.000+01:00

There was a classroom discussion today as to whether sodomy is natural or not, in connection to whether one could claim it to be immoral as a 'natural law.' Needless to say which side I was on.

What amazes me is that anybody can actually believe the practice to be natural. Surely it is obvious that humans are simply not made for that.

There were the usual claims that homosexuals could not help the way they are. That they did not choose to be so. Therefore I had no right to be prejudiced against them. To which I reply that if there is a God, and thus moral absolutes, sodomy must be wrong, because such a God has clearly created us to be men with women and vise versa (some as I have outlined above even contended this point). If God has created us intending us to do one thing to do the other must be against his purpose and therefore wrong. On the other hand if there is no God (as they were saying) there are no moral absolutes, therefore I can be as prejudiced as I want. To what moral code can they hold me for being 'unjust' when justice is a non-word.

What it boils down to is that sodomy cannot even be defended by Freud's statement; 'What's natural is normal, and what's normal is right.'

2005-04-18T18:42:00.000+01:00

Postmodernism is surely flawed as even the principle that 'everybody is right' can be viewed as an absolute.

Anybody who doesn't agree with it must be wrong, if that principle is right.

The Pontiff

2005-04-13T20:25:00.000+01:00

I have been appalled, but sadly not surprised, by the reaction of people in this country to the Pope's death.

1, Prince Charles postponed his wedding in order to attend the Pope's funeral. No doubt a good thing in itself, but to attend the funeral of the anti-Christ. This man is the future head of the Church of England, D. V. The 'defender of the faith,' although he prefers to be called 'defender of faith.'

2,The Archbishop of Canterbury not only attended attended the funeral but also waxed lyrical about the Pope. What hope is there for the Anglican community when it's primary primate is either too weak or too blind to recognise serious error.

3, And then, to top it all, numerous protestant, predominantly Anglican, churches up and down the the country held vigils for the pope.

2005-04-07T11:33:00.000+01:00

I haven't blogged for a long time. This is surprising as it has been the Easter holidays, thus I would have expected myself to blog more not less.

I often wonder what babies think before they're born, or just after for that manner. The sad thing is that by the time they can talk they've forgotten what it was like to not be born.

I will think of something interesting to blog at some point...hopefully.

A couple of thoughts

2005-03-26T19:02:00.000Z

The thing about Poirot is that the murderer is always really obvious in films, but not in books.

It never ceases to amaze me how that many atheists attempt to argue logically (by science etc.) the meaninglessness of life.

2005-03-24T00:00:00.000Z

My computer is now even worse that it was when I posted on the subject a while back.

Now even when it does work the screen doesn't work. I am therefore reduced to staring at a dark screen which contains a faint outline of whatever is supposed to be on the computer.

This is extremely uncomfortable on the old eyes. In fact, I think I might have got a headache from it. Although I think I had one before, so I probably haven't.

I liked this comment

2005-03-18T17:42:00.000Z

"Often, young people are kept back from the Lord's Supper because they are not yet spiritually strong. This is refusing to give your son bread when he asks for it--and, being too cheap to give him a stone instead, we give him air. When asked why the bread was refused, the reply is that he wasn't strong enough to eat bread. He was too hungry for food. After he grows up and becomes big and strong, then we can give him bread. With a sort of perverse logic, we starve our children to death, and then point to their subsequent deaths as a good reason for not having fed them"

Sola fide!

2005-03-17T23:15:00.000Z

At a recent CU meeting we were talking about what we should do if, for instance, people say, 'Don't all religions lead to heaven?'

Now people there said that we should say for example, something like, 'Christianity is individual in the world which means it must be right, while as the others are similar they must be wrong.'
This is where I disagreed with them.

I have no problem with people using logic to argue for christianity but when that logic is as nonsensical as this it ought not to be used.

One could say that it is clearly problematic if all religions lead to heaven, that to say that all religions lead to heaven is like to IB mission statement, '...to understand that others with different views can also be right..'

How can this be? Surely if one person claims to be right he by default claims that the person with the opposite view is wrong. Thus meaning that one of them must be wrong.

The same applies to religion. Any reading of either the Bible or the Quoran will show that both are exclusive. Thus how can both be right, when at least one must be wrong in claiming that the other is wrong.

Of course the pluralists would claim that the bible (for example) does not teach it has an exclusive monopoly on saving truth, or that the applicable parts do not.

However this view can easily be expunged using scripture. And as for the view which claims we can get rid of the parts of scripture that we don't like, how do we know that we can't just get rid of the parts we like.

Problem I had with the above CU answer was simple. That what it said was not true. It is a fact that we cannot disprove Islam. So why should we try to pretend that we can.
Surely it is better, yes speak of logical arguments as to why all religions cannot lead to 'heaven,' but to say that we accept on faith that everything in the Bible is true, and that Jesus is the only way, etc.

The problem is that many christians today are embarrassed to say this. Because they believe that it is not a strong basis for a claim. I would dispute this. To accept the Bible purely on faith is no more illogical than to accept that the world is round.

There is no logical reason why there wouldn't be a God, in fact there are many logical reasons why there should be a God. But any belief system in God has to be based purely on faith. How can it not be? Also any belief system is based on faith. We accept things purely on faith every day. When we learn that the earth is round we accept it, however we have no particular reason to believe that it is. We believe it because people tell us that it is, and that certain equations are reliable and prove that it is. I though have never personally sailed round the earth or been into space to see the sphere of the earth. I accept that it is spherical on faith alone. Why then is the claim that we accept the Bible purely on faith a weak one? In fact it is based on a solid assumption - that there is a God. Which is more solid than the assumption on which we base our belief that the earth is round - that people tell the truth.

For some reason as I write this I am tired, therefore I apologise if it makes no sense at all.

time

2005-03-16T21:46:00.000Z

Sometimes time seems to go faster/slower.

If I just casually glance at the flashing line, that tells me where my next word will be typed, on the screen in front of me it seems to be flashing quite quickly. However if I take some time to stare at it then it seems to be flashing slowly.

Does this mean that if I spend my life concentrating on things then I will seem to live longer (to myself). Of course if one was spending one's life staring at lines on computer screens then one could put this apparent 'long life' phenomena down to boredom.

Still, this boredom may be the very reason why things appear to be taking longer. In the light of this I would suggest that the next time you have to hand work in, and have about 10 minutes in which to do it. Do it in the most boring way you can.

I knew a blonde who was so stupid that...

2005-03-12T14:44:00.000Z

* she called me to get my phone number.

* she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice carton because it said "concentrate."

* she put lipstick on her forehead because she wanted to make up her mind.

*she tried to put M&M's in alphabetical order.

*she sent me a fax with a stamp on it.

*she tried to drown a fish.

*she thought a quarterback was a refund.

*she tripped over a cordless phone.

*she took a ruler to bed to see how long she slept.

*she asked for a price check at the Dollar Store.

*she studied for a blood test.

*when she heard that 90% of all crimes occur around the home, she moved.

*when she missed the 44 bus, she took the 22 bus twice instead.

*when she took me to the airport and saw a sign that said "Airport Left" she turned around and went home

*and finally she got locked up in a grocery store and starved to death!

PS. No insult intended to blondes

Julius Henry Marx (Groucho Marx)

2005-03-11T22:52:00.000Z

Groucho Marx was once asked by an enthusiastic friend for his opinion of the latter's new waterfront property. "Don't think much of it," Groucho replid. "Take away the ocean and what have you got?"

Groucho Marx once sent a telegram to the exclusive Friar's Club in Hollywood: "Please accept my resignation," it read. "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member."

When they learned that a new Marx Brothers film was to be entitled "A Night in Casablanca," Jack and Harry Warner (whose Warner Brothers studio owned the rights to the famous Humphrey Bogart-Ingrid Bergman film Casablanca), threatened to sue. Groucho promptly composed a reply. "I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Bros," he declared, noting that the average movie fan could probably learn to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo Marx. "I don't know whether I could," he added, "but I certainly would like to try." He continued: "You claim you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without your permission. You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were... Now, Jack, how about you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well, it's not. It was used long before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks - there was Jack of 'Jack and the Beanstalk' and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day... As for you, Harry, you probably sign your checks, sure in the belief that you are the only Harry of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys that preceded you. There was Lighthorse Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Applebaum who lived on the corner of 93rd and Lexington Avenue..." Both parties eventually dropped the subject (though not before several other letters were exchanged - see below). However, when the studio announced the production of the Cole Porter biopic Night and Day, Groucho fired off a final mocking letter to complain; The title, he claimed, was stolen from two Marx Brothers films: A Night at the Opera (1935) and A Day at the Races (1937)!

One evening while attending one of George Gershwin's famous parties, Groucho Marx was approached by a fellow guest. "Do you think Gershwin's melodies will be played a hundred years from now?" he asked. "Sure," Groucho replied, "if George is here to play them."

"I didn't like the play," Groucho Marx once remarked, "but then I saw it under adverse conditions - the curtain was up."

"She got her good looks from her father," Groucho Marx once remarked of an acquaintance. "He's a plastic surgeon."

John Mackay and John Polkinghorne

2005-03-09T20:56:00.000Z

Yesterday evening I went to watch the above two battle it out on the issue of creation and/or evolution.

It was certainly interesting and, for those who are not aware, John Mackay was arguing for special creation in a literal six days, while Polkinghorne was defending theistic evolution.

What was bountifully evident was the bankruptcy of the Theistic evolutionists idea. Polkinghorne was left resorting to spouting what could only be defined as rubbish. Doing an excellent impersonation of a politician, he expertly avoided answering questions and kept repeating that Genesis 1-3 was a theological text (who would deny it!) and that this meant he could interpret it however he wanted to. However he gave no biblical back up for this assumption.

Which brings me to what worried me most about his argument - the fact that whenever he attempted to back up a point, he went to science rather than scripture. Not once did he justify his interpritation of Genesis from scripture always from science.

P.S. I am aware that those last two sentances were rather tautological, but I wished to emphasise my point.