rearranged the vids section. now "matt" seems more "featured".. and its also more organized, oh and i added direct links for each section too.. i am pleased
and now, for your viewing pleasure, i have extended the blog post code to include little preview images of videos i post.. to celebrate, let us watch a fun video:
oh yeah (started this post 4 hours ago, before getting distracted with fixing everything else), iiiiiim baaaack!! so, im not sure if i already posted this, but this weekend was to be my first snow camping adventure.. to joelie's cabin up in the northern wilderness.. and it was amaaazing!! we had a great time.. and honestly, i feel more relaxed than i have in maybe years.. i really do feel like ive been resting for months from just this weekend.. we had to use snow shoes (cuz if you were rebellious and tried to do it without them you soon found that you were going to have to sink to your knees at every step) to trek up for almost 2hours dragging 2 sleds with all our stuff.. it was quite the physical effort, but i was definitely in the zone for it, so i basically just stared at the sleds and they dragged themselves up those hills.. we had a mexican food night (courtesy of luxembourg), ate like starvin marvins (though i only went to the outhouse once.. i know how to concentrate pretty well when im in the zone, and i know how to get only as much intake as i need), had some of my famous linaza with brio, i taught joelie how to connect four, while i graciously allowed him to sink my battleships (i didnt want him to feel bad about being so thin in comparison to my biceps that have biceps.. when im in the zone) we also joked for hours while my wife just stared at us with a confused look. and yes, there was no running water, only melted ice water.. and yes, at that temperature too.. heat was from a stove furnace (yes, very awesome), and light was from propane gas (though joelie was providing his own propane all through the weekend) or solar powered electricity (not that we were trying to be green or anything, since we were burning pretty much anything we could get our hands on.. we almost burnt lux's new nike's.. but i guess we were distracted by all the burning plates so we forgot. the water we used to wash the dishes and handses was pumped by joelie, LOUDAH! and the one we used to drink was dragged up hills in large quantities.. very large quantities that required two large bulls/silverback gorillas to drag up the hill, OR, just one me in the zone. we filmed one more scene for matt (which as you know i am currently reediting) as we walked in the forest.. where i tackled lux a couple of times to the snow.. its ok, she wasnt in the zone, so it was pretty easy. i made drawings in the snow, and then we shot a rifle.. no pun intended. eventually we had to come back i guess and so we returned home. on the way up we had visited the neighbors log cabin, who showed us his bear he hunted, his moose he hunted, and all the deer and other animal antlers he had there.. quite quite impressive. oh yeah, did i mention the bear was hunted in his back yard? (where there apparently is a bunch of bears that come to visit in the warmer months.. and who he sets out bait for with his 3year old son) of course, he is a sissy and uses a projectile to hunt the animals instead of using his bear hands (oop, freudian typo) to slowly choke the life out of these animals as you stare into their eyes until they go blank, like i do, but i guess bow and arrow hunting is second best when you arent in the zone..
im pretty sure im forgetting somthing.. besides the awesome frozen icicles on the rocks on the way over and back.. but as i remember i shall post it.. one last effort to remember.. AH! and the songs. we sang songs.. (sort of) yep, it was a weekend to remember.. thankyou joelie, i shall repay you in years of friendship.. which i hope you consider of positive value or else i will end up owing you more as the years go by, but then again, i preached against that, so you know ive done it..
ok, so hopefully the blog will now not have those "weird" characters for you.. (on my browser they were like black diamonds with a question mark inside)
maybe youve heard of one or more of these terms, as i had, but never really understood what they are, or their relevance.. so i finally ran into this link (thanks to fisher who originally posted it) which does a great job at pitting the different positions nicely on a per-point basis. these three positions are referred to as systems of biblical interpretation.
i had never heard of new covenant theology before reading this, but i found myself most agreeing with that position over the other two. dispensationalism i found to be quite off in many points though.. and i did have to look up a couple of terms, which i will present below for you too.
i will use the same abbreviations as in the site for the rest of the post (NCT, CT, DISP). as the names imply CT and NCT are basically the same except for some (i would say key) points, which i will present verbatim (ive left the typos in, for example -- each comparison point is exactly as stated in the site, with the authors comments and all) and then comment below each comparison point) i will first do a write up on the points where CT and NCT differ, and some other time i will do the rest (ie, the ones where CT and NCT agree). also, please note that the author also says he agrees most with NCT, so have that in mind when reading through his presentation of the 3 positions. anyways, without further ado, here it is:
[DISP] God has 2 peoples with 2 separate destinies: Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly).
[CT] God always had only one people , the Church gradually developed through the ages, in accordance with an Covenant worked out in etrnity past between the "Three Persons of the Godhead."
[NCT] In OT, believers are called simply "the elect of Israel", not the Church. NCT doesn't recognize a Church in the OT, such as in the NT. In Matt 16:18, Jesus said that will build His Church. There is but one people of God of whom natural Israel was the typical foreshadowing. So, the Church is the "New Israel."
also hosea talks about God making a new nation for himself, a group that were not His people before. and, jeremiah 3 refers to God "divorcing" His wife(s) (the nation of israel and judah) and in jeremiah 31 it talks about God going to make a new pact, as the old one had been broken. OT believers fall under the old pact, and christians (or NT believers) fall under the new pact, which mark 14:24 tells us is in Jesus' blood.
so there is only one nation or people of God at any given time, but the pact they were under as a people of God varied. this will be expanded in the points below
NOTE: the word "pact" is interchangeable with the word "covenant". this is the word that Jesus uses in mark 14:24 and is the greek and hebrew words used to describe the NT. "testament" is a mistranslation of the word "pact".. so though we call it the new "testament" its actually a reference to a "pact" and not a "testament" (testament is a document that is "left behind").. if you read the cover of the book of mormon it has a subtitle that says "another testament of Jesus Christ".. which shows a complete lack of understanding of both these concepts.. the word used by Jesus which names our second half of the bible, and the point that Jesus' pact is eternal, and will not change.. because it is in HIS blood!!
[DISP] The Church was born at Pentecost.
[CT] The Church* began in the OT (Acts 7:38) and reached fulfillment in the NT.
*There is an unfortunate tendancy to translated the word "ecclesia" with the word church, when it can very well be translated "assembly", which would make more sense in the OT version of it. Since Jesus said that He would build His church, then it stands to reason that it wasn't yet built. Remember that Christ is the Head of the body, which is the church (assembly). No similar teaching exists in the OT.
[NCT] Same as Dispensationalism.
here is where it gets sticky. the CT position is what leads people to saying stuff like "david was a christian!" if you dont immediately see why that is dangerous to say, remember that david, though the bible truthfully says that he was "a man after God's own heart", was also a liar, a murderer and an adulterer.. though his repentance was solid, dont forget that God annointed him king from before any of this ever happened. do you see what the danger in saying he was a christian is now? your theology would demand that you allow for christians, who have been washed by the Blood of the Lamb, supernaturally converted from goats to sheep, given a new heart and a new Spirit (as promised in ezekiel 36), indwellt and sealed by the Holy Spirit of God, to be as sinful as david was without conflict. this is not to say that people who hold this position say that it is ok, just that you can be both a saint and a lying, adultering, murderer, which paul and john and the others so emphatically said was impossible. just to be clear, though david was all these things, he was also one of God's elect, and i firmly believe He is in God's presence, but this is of course, only due to Jesus spilling His blood for david on the cross. the difference is that david's salvation by the grace of God was not accompanied by regeneration as is the case for christians
now, to those who hold such a position, saying david was a christian, let me ask the following, "when was david's conversion? when was he born again, as Christ said we must be?"
but back to the point, the church was born at pentecost, which is where Jesus' promise of the "counselor" (the word used was "paraclete") is fulfilled. remember that if it was a promise, it was because it had not yet been fulfilled. that means that the way the Holy Spirit operated on earth in believers before the day of pentecost was different to the way He operates now. paul describes this as the indwelling, or the "seal" of the Holy Spirit.. and who can open the seal of the Holy Spirit? (another argument for the persistence of the saints.. ie, that salvation cannot be lost) affirmation of this position comes in several parts of the OT, i can think of 1 samuel 16 off hand, which says that the Holy Spirit left saul (i thought that same verse said "never to return again" but i think i misread that part.. though i have yet to find a place that says that the Holy Spirit did return to saul) also to mind is samson, who when the Holy Spirit would enter him, was able to do great feats of strength. in other words, the Holy Spirit's permanence in believers in the OT was not.. uhm, "permanent". i use this argumentation to add that how can the HOLY Spirit of God be present (and hence made participant) of such terrible sins as were punished by death in the OT? i cannot fathom it. for "little" sins, ok.. a lie, something like that.. but for murder, witchcraft, idolatry, and fornication (the one that was punishable by death.. yes, there were different kinds) i personally cannot fathom it. i was working on a biblical defense document for this position, but i have yet to finish (no urgency on the matter anymore either).
[DISP] God's main purpose in history is national physical Israel.
[CT] God's main purpose* in history is Christ and secondarily the Church.
*God's main purpose is His own glory, Christ included because He is the glory of God, and then the church.
[NCT] Same as Covenant Theology with one exception. NCT sees the saints of the OT as being added to the church after it's built. But NCT says that the Bible doesn't call the OT saints "the church".
this is a nice point i think, because it clarifies that we are not God's main purpose, His glory is His main purpose.. we just are a part of that main purpose
anyways, in regards to the diff between CT and NCT, i think if rephrased as "God's main purpose* in history is Christ and secondarily His elect" there would be no contention.
[DISP] There was no eternal Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity, to effect election.
*We think some of the old Dispensationalists did believe in a Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity, but we are not sure and I don't know about the new modified Dispensationalists.
[CT] The eternal Covenant of Redemption was within the Trinity to effect election.
[NCT] Same as Dispensationalism but there was an eternal Decree or Purpose of Redemption within the Trinity to effect election.
notice its just a change of terms from "covenant" to "decree". it sounds trivial at first, except the point is that there are some issues with describing it as a "covenant" within the Trinity, where "decree" is more appropriate. think of it as making a pact with yourself. doesnt make sense does it? but if you declare that you will do something (where God can simply decree something, being sovereign and all) it makes perfect sense. i think the importance of this is lost to the nuance of what a biblical covenant entails. in biblical covenants, there was usually a penalty for failure to comply with your end of the deal, and covenants were generally breakable (as God's covenant with israel was broken by israel, for example). why would God set it in this framework when He can just declare and decree? i think most CT people are thinking of decree when they refer to this point anyways.
[DISP] Most believe there was no Covenant of Works with Adam in the Garden of Eden.
[CT] God made a conditional Covenant of Works with Adam as representative for all his posterity.
[NCT] Same as Dispensationalism. But agree with CT on Adam as representative for all his posterity.
ok here i might disagree with NCT, God expressedly told adam that he would certainly die if he ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. the implication here being that adam would have no reason to die otherwise. of course, we also know that when adam did eat, he didnt "die" immediately.. referring to his physical death.. but what did happen? spiritual death. it is this state of spiritual death that is passed on to all of us (please bear with me on this phrase, since this is something im still trying to iron out in my own theology.. im not sure yet if we are born spiritually dead --with all its implications, or if we die at the moment of our first sin --with all its implications.. this is a bit of a deep, non-trivial doctrinal issue with enormous implications to our understanding of a lot of things... one thing i do have clear is that our sinful natureis inherited from adam.. and nobody can avoid that.. but whether we are born dead in sin, or if this is a result of our first "personal" sin (ugh i hate that expression) im not sure yet.. ill post something as soon as i come to some conclusion. dont hold your breath though) in other words, adam did eventually physically die, but this was put off because of God's sacrifice for the two of them (or where do you think clothes made of skins come from, if not an animal that gave its life for it?) but his spiritual death was instant, and needed an eventual sacrificial atonement to cover it.. and this was done in Christ, some 4000(?) years later.
in any case, it is necessary to note, that though i might call it a "covenant of works" the whole point is that adam was going to fall. ie, the fall was instituted by God, God was not "caught by surprize" by adam's fall. the whole point of God's law was always to show us we cannot meet God's standard, but instead desperately require His GRACE. see the point? the point of the fall, and the creation of man, was for God to demonstrate His Grace to undeserving beings. the point, my friends, of man's fall, the point of God allowing sin to exist, is for Him to be able to express unconditional love!!!! you see, because God is perfect, His love for Himself cannot be expressed as "unconditional", God deserves to be loved. and so, though His love for His Son (for Himself, in the Trinity) is perfect, its not expressible as "unconditional" since God cannot fail. man, however, could, and did, and thats the point. its not so much that God "wanted" us to fail, but that in our failure, of which He was well aware would happen, we would require grace and mercy, also known as "undeserved favor".. and as the bible tells us in 1 john 4:10,19 and romans 5:8, on the basis of psalm 5:5, and 11:5, God loved us FIRST, while we were sinners, hated enemies of God. imagine that. the whol point of the fall was for God to show unconditional love for hated enemies. praise God!! my goodness!! it is then true (but only with this explanation) that we can say that God created us to show His love. more precisely, God created us to manifest His Glory by showing His unconditional undeserved love towards hated enemies. agh!! praise God again!!
anyways, back to the point, i think there might be an issue with how we express it, but in a very real sense there needed to be some form of covenant for adam to break it and need grace. since all who have ever been saved has been by grace, (through faith).. and not by works.. lest anyone should boast. im not sure what the NCT position on this is, more precisely. but as stated, i cant say i agree. just one note though, which i might almost have missed, it says for the CT position that it was as a "representative for all his posterity" that the pact was made with adam, now, maybe its mostly due to the later problems i had last year with the "doctrinal wars" (as i shall call them from now on) where the second war was in regards to whether we go to hell because of our sin or adams.. ugh. as if this is something i seriously had to defend a position on. but in any case, the one guy came and started saying how we all go to hell because of adam's sin, where i said that no, we go to hell because of our own sin. and the debate flared up. does this make sense to anyone? he used romans 5 to defend his position.. which i see no way as saying what he says (especially since it says "for all have sinned" right there) but he kept saying how we all sinned when adam sinned.. yes "when" not "because".. ie, that adam's sin is made our sin, no matter what we might have or have not done. anyhooze, water under the bridge.. except for the fact that he has support from people i greatly respected (notice the past tense.. not due to this issue, but due to some other stuff i later had the nasty experience of.. uh.. experiencing) and it was actually from them that he heard these things, and it again surprizes me to see how some of the people most respected for their knowledge sometimes also have the least amount of critical thought.. in other words, its again the difference between knowledge and understanding.. where you can "know" a lot, and yet understand nothing. this is not to disparage, but just an observation, and a heads up for all of you. so if this is what this CT position statement is referring to, then i guess i cant agree with that. but as it is written, i think its ok, and i can agree with it. as long as we dont use it to say that it is adams sin that sends us to hell, and not our own.
quick sidenote that i just realized while reading the wikipedia page on "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", they make a note to say that eve had not been created when God told adam not to eat the fruit, (though eve was aware of the indication, since she told the snake) this is important because dont forget, we receive our sinful nature from adam not from eve.. the bible says that it was adam who "sinned" whereas eve was "deceived".. interesting, eh? it got me thinking and perhaps this is to say that the indication (can we say "law"?) was given only to adam, hence he was the one who broke it, and sin entered the world, corrupting all of creation. all of it. anyways, its interesting, but just an afterthought, not going to take a position on that right now.
[DISP] Most believe there was no Covenant of Grace concerning Adam.
[CT] God made a Covenant of Grace with Christ and His people, including Adam.
[NCT] Does not believe in a "Covenant of Grace", as the term is not found anywhere in Scriptures. NCT believes that only when the Bible stipulates that a Covenant has been "cut" between God and man, is there a Biblical reason for believing that one has been made. This is not to say that God isn't gracious to man in "cutting" a covenant with him; but that the term itself is never found in Scriptures, and thus should not be used, especially when describing the Mosaic Covenant, which was a law covenant.
hmm this is another one of those points. i have to say i agree with both CT and NCT.. haha, i agree that the term "covenant" is not used like that, but we have to realize that retroactively, God did make a new covenant which would be eternal, where eternal means that it cannot be broken, so it cannot depend on fallible man, this can only be a matter of Grace. so, in some implied sense of the word, yeah, there is a covenant of Grace, in Jesus' Blood. whether we should use the term or not, meh, its a matter of preference i would say, but i wouldnt say it is wrong to do so.
[DISP] Israel was rash to accept the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.
[CT] Israel was right to accept the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.
[NCT] NCT say that Israel was so frightened* that they would have accepted anything.
*I don't know if I would agree with that, and this may be a caricature on my part, as I'm not 100% sure about this. (DH)
wow, this is an interesting point here.. something i had never really thought about. at first thought, i would have to say that NCT sounds about right. i dont know how israel would have known that they might have another option, but we do see people in the OT contending with God, men of God like Jacob and Moses, so the possibility is not excluded, but in seeing that the covenant was one of works, based on 613 precepts, they shouldve known they were bound to break it. but it does say that they rejoiced in hearing the law that God had given. this of course i conclude as meaning that they were rejoicing because of the fact that they knew they could not keep this law, and this was therefore a manifestation of God's perfect holiness.. something indeed to rejoice over. it is something i say often (now i just need to find the exact places where it is stated), no "righteous" OT believer is stated as having kept the law, but rather as having loved the law.. "keeping" the law is a work of pharisees.. it is focusing on the law itself, and not the point of the law. "loving" the law is about loving the purpose of law, the manifestation of God's perfect holiness.. and its result, knowing that we cannot keep the law and desperately require grace to be saved. that is what its all about. same thing we see today with people worried about "sin" and not as much about honoring God.. whats the difference? well, we dont go through our lives trying to find what is and what isnt a sin.. as if there were two lists to compare, the one of our deeds and the one of sins, and see if the ones on one list appear on the other. no, the point is that we must do absolutely everything to honor God.. whether we think something is a sin or not, our motivation should not be the least bad thing, but the most good thing. in other words, we should strive for excellence in everything for God's glory, not just the minimum "acceptable" standard. i guess this is part of what got me in trouble with the whole "does the christian sin?" debacle. water under the bridge again, i guess. but its still interesting to see how furiously people will defend their right to sin.. and how upset they get when told they cant. to the point where they will move to expell a pastor without due process. haha, hmm, i thought i said water under the bridge.. ok, NOW water under the bridge.. but still, points to ponder, eh?
[DISP] God's program in history is mainly through separate dispensations.
[CT] God's program is history is mainly through related covenants, but all those covenants were derived from the eternal covenant that the Trinity made in eternity.
[NCT] God's program in history is through related covenants, but culminating in the new covenant that eliminates the others because they were all realized in Christ.
yeah, not much to say here again, just a matter of NCT avoiding the use of eternal covenant towards the more favorable "decree" term. and yes, the covenant in Christ's blood is the culmination of all, tetelestai!!
[DISP] Most teach that men in the OT were saved by faith in a revelation peculiar to their Dispensation, but this did not include their faith in the Messiah as their sin-bearer.
[CT] All men who have ever been saved have been saved by faith in Christ as their sin-bearer, which has been progressively revealed in every age.
[NCT] Same as CT, although *some* would say that in the OT many would not have known about the sin-bearing part, just that they were sinners that needed the grace of God to be forgiven, and that they waited for the promise of God for He would crush the head of the serpent.
i guess i fall into the "some" category of the NCT position. i dont see where the OT saints explicitly mention a messianic belief, but certainly a dependence upon the grace of God is evident. so they were saved by Grace through faith.. that God would deliver them. and really, thats all thats necessary, not the "how", since if the how was not revealed, how could they know it? with isaiah, the "how" is expressed pretty clearly though. so at least at that point it becomes available.
[DISP] The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the Dispensation of Grace, not OT and not after the "Secret Rapture."
[CT] The Holy Spirit has indwelt believers in all ages, especially in the present NT era, and will not be withdrawn.
[NCT] They believe that the indwelling wasn't the same as in the Church time. In Joh. 13:16-18, Jesus said that He would send the comforter that He may "abide" (live) with them forever. If the Holy Spirit was already "abiding" with them, as with the Church after Pentacost, then that promise means nothing.
i think i explained my position on this fully in a previous point, so i wont repeat.
[DISP] OT believers were not 'in Christ,' nor part of the Body or Bride of Christ.
[CT] Believers in all ages are all 'in Christ' and part of the Body and Bride of Christ.
[NCT] Same as CT, but realized in the NT.
here the difference is just the specification that it was realized (ie, "made effective") with the arrival of Christ, and not before
[DISP] The OT Law has been abolished. For the Church, but not Israel, who will be under that Law when the Church is taken away, and God returns to His original people... Physical Israel.
[CT] The Law has 3 uses: to restrain sin in society, to lead to Christ, and to instruct Christians in godliness. The cereminial laws have been abolished; the civil laws have been abolished except for their general equity; the moral laws continue.
[NCT] Same as Dispensationalism, without believing that physical Israel has a future. NCT says that only the laws of the NT apply to the Christian. The OT Law is there to instruct us in the way God dealt with His people in the OT. Christ is affirmed as being "The New Law-Giver", as opposed to Moses who was "The Old Law-Giver".
ok, one thing that needs to be specified is the use of the term "physical israel", this means what we call "jews" today, as descendants of jacob. this is to make the distinction from "spiritual israel" which is what many (including myself) refer to as the assembly of believers, ie, the present day church plus all the saints. i say "present day" because i think calling it "spiritual israel" might be a reference to living believers here on earth (or if any are out there on a space walk, them too) and perhaps not necessarily to the physically dead believers (who i believe are just referred to collectively as "the saints" or "the church", where both of these terms include living believers of course).
as for the stuff on the laws, this might be a bit trickier, since we are not under the law, we are under grace, but there are certain clear changes in what we are "allowed" to do that non believing jews arent.. like the dietary laws (except for the eating of blood) and the ceremonial laws (i would venture to say that not just most, but all ceremonial laws were set in order to teach some spiritual truth, specifically messianic truths.. like how the sacrifice had to be without blemish, etc.. ) however.. i dont know if that therefore means that what we are under is in some sense some sort of "law".. (and dont forget, where there is no law, there is no imputation of sin) though to me it makes perfect sense.. but of course, i was also accused of heresy over it. if Christ has washed us of ALL evil (as 1john says) and we are under Grace, and not under the law, then how can we therefore call what we do sin? of course, im just thinking out loud here, and dont forget that Jesus clearly said that it is possible to sin against a brother.. interestingly, i never found a single verse that says that we as supernaturally converted believers can sin against God.. i know, i went through the entire NT looking at every instance of the word "hamartia" ("sin" in greek) to try to find one, and all i found was that one. sinning against another brother.. interesting, again, eh? of course, this isnt to say that we cant do things that dishonor God, or as paul puts it "grieve the Holy Spirit", but like ive said before, this is a deeper subject than i can really go into at this moment, but just a bunch of points to ponder.
one note though, i tried finding that term of "new law giver" in the Bible (mostly through the use of google) and its not a biblical term, its just a doctrinal conclusion people have come to due to the comparison of Jesus to moses in matthew 5-7.. but its not something that the Bible says is a title for Jesus.. not "new" added onto it, for sure.. james does say that there is only ONE law giver.. not that there is a new one.. just so you guys are aware.
in any case, a lot of this explanation of the concept of the purpose of the law i did for one of the points above, which neither of the positions here really stress it enough. though yes, a secondary and important result of the law of moses was to separate the israelites behaviorally from the surrounded gentile nations, the main purpose of the law was to manifest God's perfect holiness and man's inability to reach that standard. ie, requiring man to realize how desperately in need of grace He is to enter the presence of this holy, perfect God!
[DISP] OT laws are no longer in effect unless repeated in the NT.
[CT] OT laws are still in effect unless abrogated in the NT.
[NCT] Same as Dispensationalism.
hmm, strange, though at first you might be inclined to ask "whats the difference" the point is that one says "all applies unless otherwise stated" while the other says "nothing applies unless otherwise stated". again, i agree with the NCT position, mostly due to the jeremiah 31 promise of a new covenant, a new covenant, not a covenant addition.. or covenant "edit".. and i dont mean that to make light of the CT position.
[DISP] Teaches that the Millennium is the Kingdom of God. They are always Premil, usually Pre-tribulation.
[CT] The Church is the Kingdom of God. They are usually Amil or Postmil; although a few are Premil or Preterist.
[NCT] Same as CT, but the Church is an NT creation.
oh my goodness, ok some more terms you might not be familiar with "premil" is short for "premillenialist" which means that they believe that Jesus will literally physically come at some point and establish a literal thousand year kingdom, after which comes a big war and then the judgment. "postmil" ("postmillenialist") believe that Jesus' coming would be after the literal thousand year kingdom. "amil" ("amillenialist") believe there is no literal thousand year kingdom, (ie, that we are currently in it, but that its the same as the "church age"). there is another term you need to know, which is "preterist", this one isnt short for anything, preterist, as the name implies means "the come afters" (or something like that) and they believe a form of amillenialism, except saying that Jesus already returned in the year 70AD, the year of the destruction of the second temple. the guy who wrote up these points on that site is a preterist.
upto a few years ago, i didnt realize there was so much divergence on this subject, i guess i held the premill view since i heard about it (it was the only view i had heard about) then i read matt 24, and figured the "rapture" (a sorely mistaught subject) could not be before the tribulation.. so my understanding has been evolving (see? that proves evolution!) tim conway also gave a good quick exposition on the matter.. if i remember correctly he is an amillenialist, and made a good defense of the position. i havent really gone deep into the matter, since i see it as not that important (does it affect our salvation or view on holiness? no. not that important then) i dont really have a clear view of what the bible is presenting in terms of chronology and symbology.. ie, what happens when, and what is literal and what is symbolic (dont forget that revelations is a book that tells of the dream that john had in prison, in other words, as a dream it has a lot of symbols) so i have to piece together all the relevant verses to actually take a position on the matter.. and we are talking about several books of the Bible, including books in the OT such as daniel, which are likely to be importantly related to the matter. anyways, a lot to say very little.
when Jesus talked about the kingdom of God, He said it was at hand, and that it was something we would see and could enter. i think it makes perfect sense to say that the church is the kingdom of God, since a kingdom is nothing more than "where the king is king", so if God is my king, and this is true for me, then i am a part of that kingdom, no matter how i look at it. however, this would then bring the issue of whether then the OT believers were part of the kingdom of God.. but we dont see this being stated this way in regards to the OT, same as how we dont see the OT believers being "the church" but rather, added into it later. and dont forget, Jesus said the kingdom was "at hand" meaning it was coming (ie, Jesus was ushering in the kingdom, something that wasnt done before). so again, i find myself agreeing with the NCT position, without really having a "-mil" position.. yet. at this point i figure it could just be any of the 4.
[DISP] Most do not embrace infant baptism. Usually believer's baptism is the norm, although those Dispensationalists that are Presbyterian are paedobaptists.
[CT] Most embrace infant baptism, but the Baptist among them don't.
[NCT] Does not embrace infant baptism, only believer's baptism.
presbyterian, for those of you who dont know, is the denomination of john calvin (yeah, the guy who gives his name to calvinism, as if it was something he came up with. as a note, in case you are curious about this, this is mostly due perhaps to his simple compilation of reformed theology to 5 easy to remember points, referred to as "TULIP" where this stands for "Total depravity" (man is completely depraved, ie, evil, though not as depraved as he could be) "Unconditional election" (God sovereignly elects those whom He wants to save unconditionally, ie, not based on anything in the elected) "Limited atonement" (Jesus did not spill His blood for the unsaved, so His atonement is limited to the elect) "Irresistible grace" (if God wants to save you, you cant reject/resist His Grace and not be saved) "Perseverance of the saints" (basically that salvation cannot be lost, ie, the saints persevere in "sainthood"/holiness until the end) i could show you how this is what the Bible teaches, but i think i will do that at some other time, for now, just take my word for it.. haha. ) in any case, calvin just codified it simply, which is why i think reforemd theology takes his name, though not all "calvinists" believe what calvin believed.. such as infant baptism. im not really sure to what degree paedobaptists go to in their belief of infant baptism, ie, if it somehow makes the children saved, or if its just a form of "dedication" unto the Lord, if its the first, thats obviously unbiblical, if the second, then i see no problem with that, as long as the child knows he has not been baptized unto salvation, i guess. the bible most clearly teaches believers baptism ("credobaptism") since it was after believers believed that they were baptized, some even were baptized again, as the first baptism "didnt work" (hehe.. i mean it sort of in jest, but basically because the believers had not "received the Holy Spirit", so they were baptized again.. not to mean that it was because they didnt manifest the weird heretical shaking and blabbing we see in these days, and then afterwards they did, but rather possibly because they had not been saved until the apostles lay hands on them, for whatever reason) and it was never because of baptism that anyone was ever saved.. some were baptized and not saved within the account told in the bible (such as simon the sorcerer in the book of acts)
well, theres the first part i guess.. i have a feeling that the second part wont come soon, seeing as how long it took me to write this part (due greatly to distractions to my chagrin) in any case, heres the link again to the original site:
comparison of three systems
the one definition i had to look up was "analogy of faith" which basically means "the method of biblical study that says that Scripture must interpret Scripture" in other words, that to understand any given teaching in the Bible, you must refer to the Bible to understand it, and it must fit in with the rest of what the Bible teaches and not contradict it. pretty obvious, one would think, but i would say the GREAT majority of people, even those of "sound" doctrine, dont practice this, instead going off to what other men have said on the subject to believe as they do. without personally considering what they believe within the scope of the rest of the Bible. still many others interpret Scripture according to their already held notions of how God should be or how He should do things.. not really taking into consideration that God doesnt really fit into our mold that we've made for Him. and getting rid of that mold is the first step in truly understanding Him more deeply and intimately. truly getting to know God, for who He is, and not who we "think" He is..
anyways, i hope this was of some help, and at least a bit edifying and hopefully my tone was not offensive to all who disagree with me, since dont forget that these arent views ive always held, so differing even on all these points does not exclude you from salvation in my book, however, i believe that in careful study and consideration, this is the most accurate understanding of what the Bible is teaching. not that i cant change my mind if shown biblically that im way off on something.. i would strongly strongly urge you to practice the same kind of consideration for those you disagree with doctrinally, a consideration that was not granted to me. i would strongly warn you and remind you that it was not "by your doctrine they shall know you" that Jesus said, but rather by your fruit, and by your love.
woot!! new and updated blog updater script! this should make writing new posts a bit faster as i made the interface a bit more streamlined.. (hmm this might take some getting used to...) let me know if anything goes wrong..
John 3:16 is part of the culture of football. We occasionally see it on signs in end zones after field goals and extra point attempts; on players' tape and tattoos; and Tim Tebow was famous for writing it in his eye black. And yet, many fans don't know what it means. They have yet to be touched by the hope it offers - the immediate relevance it has to their lives.
The original goal of LookUp 316 was to air a national commercial during Super Bowl XLV on February 6th, 2011. When the organization took this idea to Fox Sports, host network of this year's Super Bowl, they rejected the commercial on the basis that it contained "religious doctrine."
Fixed Point will now be airing this commercial in Alabama during this year's Super Bowl on February 6th, 2011.
quick tip, for those who have been wondering about this too, how to remove permanent marker.. some obvious tips are to use dry erase marker over it, and then remove that.. but that doesnt always work.. some websites list the following:
Toothpaste with baking soda
Mr. Clean Magic Eraser (works for crayons, but don’t use it on skin, of course) one site even recommended dipping it in gasoline..
WD-40
club soda
Anti-bacterial hand gel
Hairspray
Cooking spray
Nail polish remover
Bleach (depending on the surface)
Goof Off (note: im guessing this is a product name, not just a recommendation to go and goof off..)
i dont see any of these sites recommending what i just did.. but it took me literally seconds..
just spray some window cleaner on the surface, let it sit for a while and come back and scratch it with your fingernail (for best results, while the window cleaner is still on it)..
im guessing you could use a toothbrush and it would be more effective, but i was too busy actually getting rid of the "stains" to think to do it a better way.. anyhooze, hope that helped
alright, updates for those loved and who love in return (if you are reading this, this means you! XD):
WOOO!! first time snowshoeing!! courtesy of joelie.. who is taking us up north to cabinland (no running water, no heating, no electricity, -20degrees, and snow.. lots of snow! plus a brisk 1hr trek..) for the weekend, this in order to make it such that i can cross off aurora borealis from my bucketlist.. this is what friends are for, friends.. for to cross off bucketlist items with!
also, if i havent been updating, its because im finally out of my rut (yes, feeling better emotionally as a result too) due almost directly to the fact that.. wait for it.. wait for it.. im editing my movie again!! yaaay! yep, for years (since i released it) ive been wanting to fix up "matt".. make it tighter, fix up a couple things.. and guess what, thats what ive been doing these past couple of weeks!! that means that ive finally set up the editing studio (courtesy of ubuntu studio which i installed on the computer my lovely wife's brother gave me (since he couldnt take it with him to school, and he already had a laptop).. not that it was easy.. oh no.. oh nonono.. (note, avoid the asus p5w dh motherboard at ALL costs.. avoid avoid avoid!!) but after about a year and a bit of toiling, i now have an audio editing suite (using rosegarden and hydrogen -- all of which needed the jackd subsystem to work.. which is awesome, but holey, what a hassle to get working.. needed a real time kernel and a bunch of messing around to just get it up and running.. definitely not trivial stuff) and a video editing suite (using kdenlive)
so ive been making music, drumloops, editing the movie, adding special effects (using gimp to make a couple of images for these.. like a gunflare, and lightning..), adding the songs to it, redoing some of the dialog and audio.. anyways.. all in summary to say that (or do i mean, "in summary:") im working on my movie again! which has really cheered me up.. and you will all soon have a rereleased version of "matt" to enjoy.. im even thinking of recording a scene this weekend for a scene ive always wanted to have in the movie.. a snow blizzard scene (well, i envisioned more of a "snow battle" scene.. but i have the next couple days to decide what i want to do for it (if anything at all) woot! exciting! (well, to be honest, im way more excited about going up north to my first snow camping experience EVER, than shooting an extra scene for the movie.. but it all just adds to the awesomeness.. ) so anyhooze, thats what ive been upto.. i think this whole "being productive" thing started up with me just realizing i cant really go on feeling down, as i would never get my business up off the ground if i am in distracted mode (you know the one.. sort of like the opposite of "sure-footed mode" -- im pretty sure that was a mindlink too.. ) and yes, im still dead set on doing this business thing, but i really want to do it right, and the way things were going, theres no way that would be the case.. so here i am, almost completely forgotten my woes, not a care in the world.. just picking myself up by the places where it most can.. and in the process accomplishing things ive been wanting to do for YEARS! (can you count them? autoarchiver script, working on the movie, going up north to cabinland, working on my scripts, fixing up the site.. ah so much..) not to mention the amount of quality time im finally able to spend with my wife.. (killing mutant beings in a 50's themed game --"resistance: fall of man"..) which has also been really great... (hopefully one day, even she might start wanting to read the blog.. oh well, when she does, heres a message for her "i love you my little marisopita cieguita cachetonsilla")
ok, back to what i was talking about.. hmm.. what was i talking about? oh yeah, some of the stuff ive been doing lately.. ive also gotten back to drawing.. which has been really good too, all this to just get back to the rhythm i had at some point, of just being productive doing different things, being motivated.. you know, all that stuff i had lost over the years of just being torn down all the time, frustrated all the time.. anyways.. a couple things i want to work on as well are a couple of short stories, finish the scripts, and finally finish the tracts i was almost finished with a couple months ago.. beyond that, i have some ideas for ventures, and of course, i need to get my business off the ground.. and start going to church again.. itll soon be time to do so.
which brings me to an important point i have to make. God established in His Word that we must not forsake fellowship.. no matter how much we've been burned, and how badly.. if you went to a church that screwed you over, mistreated you, or was just a generally bad experience, then leave, but find another church, one that will honor God (though do not expect to find a perfect one..) and go first to be healed, but not with the expectation of being served, but rather to serve. the church is a living organism, according to the Bible, one made up of different parts that work together for a single purpose.. if the head is diseased, the whole body is diseased.. and for this reason the Bible says the head is Christ.. but in a local church (congregation) the head is the leadership, usually a pastor or several pastors.. if these are not honoring God, then this is a very very precarious situation.. in most of these situations, i would just advise: "run for your life!" and while doctrine is important, its not everything, since you can have "perfect" doctrine and still not be saved (cf. the church of ephesus in revelations).. if the church is not loving and aiming to honor God, especially in holiness, then, again.. "run for your life!" and thats how we need to hunt for a church.. a place where the zeal is for holiness and honoring God, which produces in the congregants a love for one another that is palpable. and Jesus said this is how it will be known that we are His disciples, by how we love one another! (notice its not "by how good our doctrine is" --interesting, eh?) but again, doctrine is indeed important, im just saying that love is way more important, since doctrine is cleared up with a bit of in depth study.. IN LOVE. but without love, you have absolutely jack squat. the end.
One-legged Afghan Red Cross worker set to be hanged after converting to Christianity
An Afghan physiotherapist will be executed within three days for converting to Christianity.
Said Musa, 45, has been held for eight months in a Kabul prison were he claims he has been tortured and sexually abused by inmates and guards.
Mr Musa, who lost his left leg in a landmine explosion in the 1990s, has worked for the Red Cross for 15 years and helps to treat fellow amputees.
He was arrested in May last year as he attempted to seek asylum at the German embassy following a crackdown on Christians within Afghanistan.
He claims he was visited by a judge who told him he would be hanged within days unless he converted back to Islam.
But he remains defiant and said he would be willing to die for his faith.
He told the Sunday Times: 'My body is theirs to do what they want with.
'Only God can decide if my spirit goes to hell.'
Defence lawyers have refused to represent him, while others have dropped the case after receiving death threats.
Mr Musa was arrested after a TV station showed western men baptising Afghans during secret ceremonies.
read the full article.
heres what a couple of comments said:
"This is why the Afghans and the middle east needs much more than just democracy. They need the Gospel of Christ in order to modernize their thinking. Without it they will continue to be repressive societies."
and another
"If this is Afghanistan's idea of democracy, what the hell are our troops dying for."
Avatar: Legend of Korra is an upcoming American animated television mini-series that is expected to air on Nickelodeon in November 2011. The mini-series is a sequel to Avatar: The Last Airbender, which aired on the same network from 2005 to 2008, and is slated to run for 12 episodes. It will take place in the same fictional universe as the original show: an Asian-influenced world where people may have the supernatural ability to manipulate either water, earth, fire, or air, depending on what nation they are from. In this world, there is one person known as the Avatar, who maintains balance between the four nations and is the only person who can bend all four elements. Korra, the hotheaded independent protagonist of the series, is the next reincarnation of the Avatar after Aang from the original series. Set at least 70 years after [spoilers removed] in the series finale of the original show, creators Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko plan to follow Korra as she learns Airbending while facing an anti-bender revolution.
me=excited, i really liked the first one, and have been sad to think it was the end.. woot!
wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! at LONG LAST!! well, youve been waiting for it for YEARS!! here you have it.. the archiver script is DONE! and in the process, ive fixed up a bunch of things in the blog, made it nicer to use, easier to use.. etc.. yaaay! (some stuff you can try out: type after "blog/" in the address bar, the number of the month since the blog has been running.. ie, to see what i said the first month of the blog, type "insaner.com/blog/1" in the address bar.. or, you can just go by the year, or directly the month etc.. ie: "insaner.com/blog/2006/08" or "insaner.com/blog/2005" etc..) be sure to let me know if anything isnt working.. i will also be working on making the counter script "work" (for some reason last year it started going nuts.. might be hackers) and fixing up the blog script so it is easier and more pleasant to enter the posts, meaning better quality posts, etc.. i might even be adding "direct links" (that little hash sign next to the time of the post that links directly to the post.. or didnt you guys know that already??) to the old posts soon.. ive also been pondering starting to use better grammar and capitalization.. but ah, we'll see about that one.. hahah..
in other news, working on this script has really put me in a good mood, and has really given me back that rhythm i once had.. this should make it easier to accomplish a bunch of tasks ive had waiting, as well as add a bunch of projects to my bucketlist.. or my 2011 bucket list or whatever i called it.. yes, im thinking of starting to write short stories.. like, with the purpose of publishing them. we shall see about all these plans i have, and what comes of them. do pray that i continue climbing out of this rut and that the Lord continue healing my heart (and mind) i really need it.. thanks for your past prayers too, no warrior fights alone (not even in video games)
guaranteed, by the end of this weekend, the autoarchiver will be done.. all the hard stuff is coded.. now comes the putting it to work and testing phase.. i foresee this as not taking more than a few hours.. i just wont have those hours till much later on in the day.. night.. tomorrow.. we'll see.. GUARANTEED! (yes, i had a very very productive night, apparently)
woot!! was it a smooth transition?? let me know if you notice any problems.. soon, the blahsted autoarchiver script.. but not before ive archived.. or.. maybe.. hmm..
btw, slept 18 hours again today.. 2nd time this week.. this thing is really wearing me down.. wheres that "easy" button again? i seem to have misplaced it.. a while ago
"to start a forest fire, all it takes is one match, if the grass is dry, watch that forest burn right down"
-insaner
so, really, if you know the materials you are working with, you could do some real damage.. and dont forget that even the green healthy trees go up in flames in forest fires.. and all it takes is one match, and just watch it all burn. i think we know what im talking about here
The First Will Be Last, The Last Will Be First
This clip entitled "The First Will Be Last, The Last Will Be First" is taken from the sermon "Jesus the Narrow Door" preached by Pastor Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church as part of the ongoing series, "Luke: Investigating The Man Who Is God"
you know what, theres one thing ive been learning over these months, or years.. and thats that a pastor is different to a preacher mainly in that a pastor needs to love, a preacher just needs to preach. and this is what i see in driscoll, the guy exudes love! you can really tell he loves the people he is talking to, you can really tell he loves the God he is talking about.. many pastors are up there preaching because they are preachers.. but not because they are pastors.. and this results in lots of souls being left out to dry because there is nobody to care for them.. just some preacher. and this really isnt what God established for his church, but i guess the idolatry of man and brain is soo high up in even the churches these days that this is what we can usually expect nowadays.. agh. so sad
get your own ads on insaner.com for just $1