Except its not really commercialism but crass begging.  Someone just did a bunch of Christmas shopping on Amazon through my sidebar links.  Given the fact I still have no job lined up, every bit helps.

Thank you.

Chris says its not quite Maiden, but I think she’s got all the lead singer’s moves.

I think I’m obligated to report on what everyone else knows, that James Kim was found dead. I am horrified that he died that way and quite thrilled that the rest of his family survived.

Chris, makes a point about the needlessness of the death. I realize some may disagree with tone and all that, but I’m of the opinion that you simply can’t make the point strongly enough. People do stupid things in order to believe that they are “doing something” to “fix the problem.” And they end up making the situation worse. When you’re in the wilderness lost, and watching your family go hungry and cold, you have to have it really nailed into your head to stay with the car or else you will permit the desperation to drive you to actions that only decrease your chances.

I’ve always felt really silly how frightened I felt when Jennifer and I first moved away from Saint Louis and drove to my first pastorate in Auburn, Washington. I don’t feel silly any more. Kansas was fine by Wyoming was like an alien planet awaiting terraformation. Almost all the signs of human construction that you would see from interstate 80 were unmanned–sheds with antennas sticking out of them. I expected to see the Viking explorer crawling around taking soil samples.

I wasn’t being silly.  What was silly was that I didn’t take more precautions.

This post is well worth reading because the sub-Christian behavior that is shown is going on in other places as well, and is just as much tied to fundraising and power.

People who are drawn to the emerging church generally place high value on ambiguity and mystery. They reject the notion that God’s Word is clear, and anyone can understand its meaning. That means every doctrine you and I find precious is subject to new interpretation, doubt and even wholesale rejection. Everything is being questioned and deconstructed. Unlike the noble Bereans who used Scripture to test what they were taught and refine their understanding of the truth, people associated with the Emerging Church regard God’s Word as too full of mystery to warrant handling any truth in a definitive way.

Why say something like this? Because sometimes Derrida or whoever gets it right. Sometimes the claims of dogmatic certainty are simply power grabs. When someone is getting a hearing who doesn’t have confidence in your own certitude, then accuse him of skepticism in order to prevent others from giving him a hearing.

Hat tip: BHT

Okay, I can’t be satisfied leaving this in my deli.cio.us side column.

These teachings have spread into churches. My friend’s mother took part in a “tea with the Lord,” during which she and the other women wore their wedding gowns—those, at least, who managed to squeeze into them—and fancied themselves as brides of Christ.

I have to say that, as a pastor, my gut reaction would be to take a cue from “real live preacher’ and use the words that would be the equivalent of hitting control-alt-delete on a PC. But I’m not sure my current sociological ecclesial setting would tolerate such a dooce-like outburst. So, without any added emphasis: What is wrong with you!? I mean… yuck.

Hat tip: Tolle, Blogge.

OK, I don’t know what happened to my comments or my categories. I had to reduce the size of the file because it was too large to import. So I deleted all the stuff I imported from Blogger and re-imported it here. Then, after cutting all that I imported what was left: everything I had posted at WordPress.com.

So now I have to fix it. Ugh.

We ourselves think that this doctrine is contrary to Holy Scripture, but whether it is expedient to condemn it in these our canons needs great deliberation. On the contrary, it would appear

1. That Augustine, Prosper and the other Fathers who propounded the doctrine of absolute predestination and who opposed the Pelagians, seem to have conceded that certain of those who are not predestined can attain the state of regeneration and justification. Indeed, they use this very argument as an illustration of the deep mystery of predestination; which cannot be unknown to those who have even a modest acquaintance with their writings.

2. That we ought not without grave cause to give offence to the Lutheran churches, who in this matter, it is clear, think differently.

3. That (which is of greater significance) in the Reformed churches themselves, any learned and saintly men who are at one with us in defending absolute predestination, nevertheless think that certain of those who are truly regenerated and justified, are able to fall from that state and to perish and that this happens eventually to all those, whom God has not ordained in the decree of election infallibly to eternal life.

Finally we cannot deny that there are some places in Scripture which apparently support this opinion, and which have persuaded learned and pious men, not without a great probability.

This quotation (SOURCE) is making the rounds among what some people will surely regard as “the usual suspects.” I want to comment on this in relationship to the so-called “Federal Vision” which is being trumpeted abroad as a PCA-version of heffelumps and woozles.

What is significant here is that many will (I prophesy) claim that this is the “Federal Vision.” This is the great error from which we must save the PCA. But it is clearly exactly what all the “Federal Visionists” in the PCA and elsewhere have precisely denied. For instance, here is Rich Lusk from when he was a PCA minister and an assistant at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church:

Are you saying there is NO difference at all between the covenant member who will persevere to the end and the covenant member who will apostatize?

No. God certainly knows (and decreed) the difference, and systematic theologians should make this difference a part of their theology. But from our creaturely, covenantal point of view (which we should not apologize for!), there is no perceptible difference (e.g., Saul and David look alike in the early phases of their careers; Judas looked like the other disciples for a time). No appeal to the decree can be allowed to soften or undercut this covenantal perspective on our salvation. It is only as history is lived, as God’s plan unfolds, that we come to know who will persevere and who won’t. In the meantime, we are to do what was described in the handout above and demonstrated throughout Paul’s epistles – treat all covenant members as elect, but also warn them of the dangers of apostasy.The language of the Bible forces us to acknowledge a great deal of mystery here. For example, the same terminology that describes the Spirit coming (literally, “rushing”) upon Saul in 1 Sam. 10:6 is used when the Spirit comes upon David (1 Sam. 16:13), Gideon (Jdg. 6:34), Jephthah (Jdg. 11:29), and Samson (Jdg. 14:6, 9; 15:14). But in four of these five cases (David, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson), the man in question was clearly regenerated and saved by the Spirit’s work (cf. Heb. 11:32). This means that at the outset of Saul’s career, the biblical narrative itself draws no distinction between his initial experience of the Spirit and the experience of those who would enter into final salvation. Saul’s apostasy was not due to any lack in God’s grace given to him, but was his own fault. While God no doubt predestined Saul’s apostasy (since he foreordains all that comes to pass), God was not the Author of Saul’s apostasy (cf. WCF 3.1). Saul received the same initial covenantal grace that David, Gideon, and other saved men received, though God withheld from him continuance in that grace. At the same time, his failure to persevere was due to his own rebellion. Herein lies the great mystery of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility (cf. WCF 3.1, 8).

While we as Calvinists like to make a sharp distinction between genuine regeneration and the common operations of the Spirit, we should be willing to recognize that this distinction does not enter into many biblical passages. Instead, we need to be willing to speak of the undifferentiated grace of God (or the generic, unspecified grace of God). For example, in Heb. 6:4-5, some Reformed theologians try to draw subtle distinctions, showing highly refined psychological differences between the blessings listed, which do not secure eternal salvation, and true regeneration, which does issue forth in final salvation. But it is highly unlikely the writer had such distinctions in view, for at least two reasons. For one thing, it is by no means certain that those who have received the blessings listed in 6:4-5 will fall away. The writer merely holds it out as a possibility, a danger they must beware of. In fact, he expects these people to persevere (6:9).

But if the blessings catalogued are less than regeneration, and these people might persevere after all, we are put in the awkward position of saying that non-regenerate persons persevered to the end (cf. 2 Cor. 6:1)! Second, the illustration immediately following the warning, in 6:7-8, indicates these people have received some kind of new life. Otherwise the plant metaphor makes no sense. The question raised does not concern the nature of grace received in the past (real regeneration vs. merely common operations of the Spirit), but whether or not the one who has received grace will persevere into the future. Thus, the solution to Heb. 6 is not developing two different psychologies of conversion, one for the truly regenerate and one for the future apostate, and then introspecting to see which kind of grace one has received. Rather, the solution is to turn away from ourselves, and keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:1ff). This is the ‘secret’ to persevering (and to assurance).

Despite the fact that I have been promoting this for over four years, and it directly contradicts the “catholic” position advocated by the British Calvinists, this position will be ascribe to Rich Lusk, me, Steve Wilkins, Doug Wilson, and others.

And it is a rather revealing phenomenon. It is not enough, now, to simply affirm special grace only for those chosen by God for eternal life, in contrast with Augustine. Rather, one must not even appear to have anything pastoral in common with Augustine. Isn’t that Guy Waters’ repeated accusation? Not that anyone has denied a tenet of Calvinist orthodoxy, but that they have “practically” denied the doctrine by allowing that Paul addresses his Christians as brothers and warns them against falling into unbelief. Anyone who thinks there is a better way of pastoral encouragement than this is now heterodox by the new Church of EP&EPO (Experiential Pietism and Experiential Pietists Only).

This entire brutal crusade is such an obvious attempt to take a tiny sect of experientialism–a late bloomer even within the Westminster tradition–and drive out anyone who dares point to another way. And it is being done openly.

Given recent discussing of what make the best seminary students as well as the quality (or lack thereof) of pastoral blogging and the stupid reasoning used to brand people as heretical, I’m prone to think that this was rather prophetic. It was originally written on September 9, 2004–though one could argue that even then it was already happening, rather than a prediction about the future.