Here is a quote from a really good review of the newly issued Green Bible: 

 Augustine said in 397 A.D. that the “most expert investigator of the divine scriptures” will both have read all the Scriptures and also have “a good knowledge” of them. This will protect the interpreter so that others “will then be unable to take possession of his unprotected mind and prejudice him in any way against sound interpretations or delude him by their dangerous falsehoods and fantasies.”³ Heresies thrive on emphasizing only a part of Scripture (e.g., saying Jesus was God, but not man), but a knowledge of the whole militates against heresies.

Read the rest of the is review here.

I join in the conversation occasionally at an APU alumni site called addisonrd and here are some observations I had regarding a post by Michael Lee in his post called “Testing Faith”.

I was reading the Sermon On The Mount this morning and thought of your post. I’m with Ryan about Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness and have a couple of thoughts (see Matthew 4:1-11NKJV). This temptation came with Satan challenging Jesus to use his power to prove he was God. Why would Satan do that? Surely he didn’t think Jesus would bite - or was Satan so full of himself that he believed his own power was beyond that of Jesus. Since Satan was originally the highest angel in heaven and was cast out for seeking to overthrow God himself and take the throne, maybe he thought “here was another chance”. I guess what I’m seeing here is that all temptation for us, regardless of how it manifests itself, is our desire to be God and run things. The other aspect I see here is the fact that we are told that Jesus, while still fully divine, was also fully human and was tempted in every way that we are. Thus, he was enticed to prove he could best Satan, yet did not give in. Satan was pretty clever when he used quotes from the old testament as part of the temptation, but I like the way Jesus fights fire with fire and quotes even better back at him.

On May 7, 2008 in Washington, D.C., a group of Christian’s published and presented a paper they call “An Evangelical Manifesto”. This sparked a discussion at Out Of Ur blogsite so I am re-posting my comments from that blog here:

It’s been interesting to read this exchange of thoughts and I have a few observations. Prior to Roe vs Wade (abortion on demand compliments of the Supremes - 1973) few Christians were actively involved in politics, but with the legalization of the killing of innocent babies things had to change. Many Christians opened their eyes to the fact that to some degree they had allowed this to happen because they found politics so distasteful - and it is! Thus was born the “Moral Majority”. Why? because a group of judges who were appointed for life found an unwritten ‘right’ in the constitution that none had found before and the American people (not just the church) were caught completely by surprise. These people were not politically savvy and began to look for representatives who would champion this cause and the only ones they found were in the Republican party. One can hardly call these people ‘useful idiots’ with any degree of honesty. While for some, the life issue has become a form of self-righteousness, this does not diminish the necessity of staying the course.
The Democrat party on the other hand, had already become self-righteous by caring about the poor - with other people’s money. I think this is where Shane Calibourne may find himself a ‘political misfit’. He cannot justify the pro-abortion stance of the Democrats but is drawn to the re-distribution of wealth philosophy they hold. The problem is that if I take money from you that you have rightfully earned by your work and give it to my choice of poor people, I am not thereby made righteous in God’s sight. However, if I allow you to give of your own free will, then it is a different story.
Sadly, the Republican party today is not much better than the Democrat party. Christian people gained a tremendous amount of influence there in the ’80’s, but the old guard has fought back and wants to dump the true conservatives.
So, to the Evangelical Manifesto: After having read it and then Richard Land’s explanation as to why he did not sign it, I would definitely side with Richard Land. Why do we need “manifesto’s” anyway? It sounds so Marxist to me.

The new voices of the Religious Left – Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, et al – are defining down what it means to be an evangelical by making the symptoms of man’s sin (poverty, disease, etc.) a priority rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms (sin) and the cure found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

“The Religious Left is successfully redefining what it means to be a conservative evangelical by misrepresenting what it means to be a conservative evangelical. In a recent conference call hosted by Faith in Public Life, one of the emerging voices of the Religious Left, Dr. Joel Hunter, said: Read the rest of this entry »

A new book is out by George Barna and Frank Viola.  There is a chapter that implies the position in the church of ‘pastor’ (synonym for ’shepherd’) is anti-biblical in it’s present practice.I have not read the book, but it is being thoroughly discussed at www.outofur.com where I have posted this comment: Read the rest of this entry »

I heard about Evolution Sunday at church yesterday morning.  My pastor was preaching on counterfit teachers and mentioned it.  Here is an article by a scientist expressing his thoughts on the event and those participating.  And the “emerging church” thinks the world sees them as “cool”.  They have a long way to go.  Read the rest of this entry »

I discovered this blog comment at a site called Emerging Africa and it is one of the best I’ve read regarding the call for Evangelical Churches to be “inclusive”:

Inclusion is their choice

I believe we ought to be inclusive people, but the choice to be included is the choice of those who are currently not a part of us. We go looking for them, in the sense that we offer them the ability to be included. Why not invite a Muslim friend to a prayer meeting? Why not allow gay people to be in our church?

I’ll tell you why they won’t come : because if the church is to be an inclusive community, it is also to be a relational one. Here’s why. Well, we call it a ‘community.’ Communities are about relationship. If you said ’should the church be an inclusive institution’ I would say that’s a little impossible, because ‘church’ (as we know) means in itself a ‘called out people’ and implies a community of people.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is great portmodern comentary by a comedian who makes no c laim of being a Christian

This is one of the most difinitive articles I’ve seen on the emergent church

Two very public instances of divorce in the ‘Christian’ community (TBN Charismatic to be specific) have been announced in the last couple of weeks. Pastors Paula and Randy White (Church Without Walls, Tampa , FL) say they are divorcing because their respective ministries have led them in opposite directions and therefore they no longer have enough in common to continue with marriage. Does this sound like a Biblical reason for divorce? What is stunning to me is that TBN and Carman have put their stamp of approval on the whole thing. Aware of the critics, Christian artist Carman said people who don’t have the “wherewithal” to assess the situation should not judge or “open that person up to look,” as he stated it. He told Paula White that she is at the top of her game right now. Carman apparently said this on his show with Paula as his guest. Somehow I can’t imagine being at the top of my game (and “game” seems an appropriate word here) as I’m going through a divorce unless I was thrilled to escape from my spouse. I’m grossly disappointed with Carman because I have supported him since his first tour many years ago, both in prayer and monetarily. When he says we should not “open that person up to look”, what are we then supposed to do? Say ,”Yipee, she’s now hot and available?” I have yet to see anyone bring any scriptural basis for this kind of rationale.

While people in “ministry” need our continued prayers when they face difficult obstacles in life I have two observations about “Ministers”:

1. They are called to a higher standard than laypersons. “Let not many of you beome teachers…knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgement.” James 3:1
2. It seems that anyone can set themselves up to be a “Minister” and immediately be absolved from any accountability for their actions. After all, doesn’t James also say, “judge not that you be not judged”?

So why bother preaching against divorce? Well, apparently no high profile preacher does anymore. Fortunately, the pastors of my Mennonite Brethren Church are. Our church certainly needs it. “…if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.” James 5:19-20

(Part II to come)