Maybe I should quite posting and just embed his videos. Great teaching, if it a bit hyper.
No, I'll keep posting - but I love this.
Showing posts with label video. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video. Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Hamilton interview
Pretty awesome interview with Hamilton. Love the humility, the talk of the means of grace in his life, the cross and forgiveness. Oh, and hitting the ball square and not trying to crush it.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Jason Stellman, "Dual Citizens"
Jason Stellman's book Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet made my Best of 2010 list. It's a great introduction to the concept of Christians dual citizenship - and its practical too! I disagree with him on a few things, but his overall premise and presentation are really good.Just found these video introductions to the book. Check em out, and if you're interest is peaked (or ire raised), read the book.
We live simultaneously in this age and the age to come. The Holy Spirit is our engagement ring:
Worship is what we do when we gather as the church. It is holy. Life isn't holy, it's common. Both are done for the glory of God:
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Bizarre
I was looking for this song by Fernando Ortega (it fits with the message I'm preparing on Genesis 22). I love the song, but I just can't figure out what dolphins have to do with praising God in the midst of trials and doubts. It's just weird.
Monday, July 04, 2011
Song of Week
Love this song, love this version by Muse
Muse (with the Edge), "Where the Streets Have No Name"
Muse (with the Edge), "Where the Streets Have No Name"
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Christian Apostasy
Warning: I'm not advocating what I post in the next paragraphs, I'm only putting it out there as a possibility, as something to be considered. I just haven't thought enough about this proposal to dismiss it or promote it, but I do find it interesting and potentially helpful.
There are several troublesome passages throughout the New Testament, especially in Hebrews, but not limited to Hebrews, which offer stern warnings regarding the danger of apostasy. See, for example, Heb. 6:1-12, Heb. 10:26-31, 1 Cor. 15:2, 2 John 7-8, and also passages like Matt 10:22, 2 Tim 2:11-13, . How do we reconcile those passages with the seemingly contradictory claims of of the Bible that saints are eternally secure and will persevere (be preserved) till the very end? This encouragement comes from nearly all corners of the NT - from Peter (1 Peter 1:5),Paul (Rom. 8:30, Eph. 1:13-14, Phil. 1:6), John (1 John 5:13), and Jesus (John 6:38-40, John 10:27-29). How do we hold these things together in proper tension?
Some, from the Arminian/Wesleyan theological camp, argue that the warnings are indeed warnings to true Christians that they can forfeit their salvation through apostasy or continuing patterns of sin (some going so far as to say you loose your salvation every time you commit a willful sin). Thus, the warning passages are given tremendous weight while the comforting passages which emphasis security are given short shrift. Obviously, that is overly simplistic, but serves to set the contrast of the other views.
Some theologians from the Reformed standpoint (including Baptists) tend to emphasize the security side of the equation, explaining away the warnings in various ways. Some explain away the warnings of Hebrews as hypothetical warnings - "if you, as a believer, were to turn away from the faith, this would happen. If you, as a believer, were to keep on in your sinful ways, you'd be in deep trouble. It's not possible, but for the sake of argument, if it did, there'd be no hope for you." Others from Reformed camp explain the warnings against apostasy away arguing that those who fall away weren't really and truly Christians at all. They may have been upstanding members of the local church, but not of the invisible church. They weren't truly Christians, but only appeared to be so.
There's other variations on those above positions. I don't think I've ever held the first (Wesleyan/Arminian) position - not even in my unReformed wandering years. The second position which was presented only in brief (and caricature form) above has been/is my position. Today (5/31/11), however, I heard a third position that I think demands some attention. Doug Wilson argues that you can't simply explain away the warning passages, but you can't neglect those passages which promise security either. The solution: realize that the Bible is speaks in two different ways about being a Christian.
There are those who are apart of the covenant community of the church. They are Christian in this sense - they bear the marks of the covenant, meaning they have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper. They participate in the corporate life of the covenant community.
But, there is another sense which we can't ignore if we are to make sense of the biblical tension. This other sense we can term the 'decreetal' sense. Those who are Christians in the decreetal have been elect (predestined) before the foundation of the world, find their way into the covenant community by God's providence and are kept from falling by God's providence. They are 'in Christ' by God's eternal decree.
Here's why understanding these two senses is important. Those who are Christians in the covenantal sense are truly Christian in some sense, but not necessarily Christian in the decreetal sense. Therefore, when they are warned against falling away, it is a genuine warning. Don't loose what you have in the covenant community. If you do, you've lost something real and valuable. Those who believers in the decreetal sense cannot fall away, but since we aren't privy to the council and decrees of God, everyone must take these warnings seriously. Falling away is proof that though one may be a Christian in the covenantal sense, they were certainly not one in the decreetal sense.
To support his view, Wilson points again to two different kinds of metaphors in the Bible. There are those that talk of believers and unbelievers as 'ontologically different'. So, Peter can refer to unbelievers as sows and dogs (not sheep). Jesus can refer to them as goats (not sheep), or as tares (not wheat). Though they can be washed up, they aren't changed from a pig to a sheep; though they are in the same field, they aren't of the same seed. These metaphors which point to the ontological difference between believers and nonbelievers is viewing them from a decreetal perspective. Some are elect, others are not.
On the other hand, other metaphors can view believers and unbelievers as of the same stock, but different with regards to fruitfulness. So Jesus can refer to branches being broken off and tossed aside. There isn't a distinction between the branches kept and those lopped off except that one is fruitless and the other fruitful. This is a view from a covenantal perspective.
I want to do a lot more thinking and reading on this perspective. As I see it now, this understanding seems to 1) value the church as the covenant community - it is something valuable and real, 2) take the warnings against falling away seriously, 3) fits those warnings with the passages promising preservation by God in a healthy way. This understanding does flow from a controversial movement called Federal Vision, hence my reservations about recommending it wholesale. I'm honestly out of the loop on this, but it's a hot button issue in the Presbyterian Church of America. I'm open to thoughts, suggestions for further readings, push backs, etc.
Here's a short interview with Doug Wilson on this issue:
There are several troublesome passages throughout the New Testament, especially in Hebrews, but not limited to Hebrews, which offer stern warnings regarding the danger of apostasy. See, for example, Heb. 6:1-12, Heb. 10:26-31, 1 Cor. 15:2, 2 John 7-8, and also passages like Matt 10:22, 2 Tim 2:11-13, . How do we reconcile those passages with the seemingly contradictory claims of of the Bible that saints are eternally secure and will persevere (be preserved) till the very end? This encouragement comes from nearly all corners of the NT - from Peter (1 Peter 1:5),Paul (Rom. 8:30, Eph. 1:13-14, Phil. 1:6), John (1 John 5:13), and Jesus (John 6:38-40, John 10:27-29). How do we hold these things together in proper tension?
Some, from the Arminian/Wesleyan theological camp, argue that the warnings are indeed warnings to true Christians that they can forfeit their salvation through apostasy or continuing patterns of sin (some going so far as to say you loose your salvation every time you commit a willful sin). Thus, the warning passages are given tremendous weight while the comforting passages which emphasis security are given short shrift. Obviously, that is overly simplistic, but serves to set the contrast of the other views.Some theologians from the Reformed standpoint (including Baptists) tend to emphasize the security side of the equation, explaining away the warnings in various ways. Some explain away the warnings of Hebrews as hypothetical warnings - "if you, as a believer, were to turn away from the faith, this would happen. If you, as a believer, were to keep on in your sinful ways, you'd be in deep trouble. It's not possible, but for the sake of argument, if it did, there'd be no hope for you." Others from Reformed camp explain the warnings against apostasy away arguing that those who fall away weren't really and truly Christians at all. They may have been upstanding members of the local church, but not of the invisible church. They weren't truly Christians, but only appeared to be so.
There's other variations on those above positions. I don't think I've ever held the first (Wesleyan/Arminian) position - not even in my unReformed wandering years. The second position which was presented only in brief (and caricature form) above has been/is my position. Today (5/31/11), however, I heard a third position that I think demands some attention. Doug Wilson argues that you can't simply explain away the warning passages, but you can't neglect those passages which promise security either. The solution: realize that the Bible is speaks in two different ways about being a Christian.
There are those who are apart of the covenant community of the church. They are Christian in this sense - they bear the marks of the covenant, meaning they have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper. They participate in the corporate life of the covenant community.
But, there is another sense which we can't ignore if we are to make sense of the biblical tension. This other sense we can term the 'decreetal' sense. Those who are Christians in the decreetal have been elect (predestined) before the foundation of the world, find their way into the covenant community by God's providence and are kept from falling by God's providence. They are 'in Christ' by God's eternal decree.
Here's why understanding these two senses is important. Those who are Christians in the covenantal sense are truly Christian in some sense, but not necessarily Christian in the decreetal sense. Therefore, when they are warned against falling away, it is a genuine warning. Don't loose what you have in the covenant community. If you do, you've lost something real and valuable. Those who believers in the decreetal sense cannot fall away, but since we aren't privy to the council and decrees of God, everyone must take these warnings seriously. Falling away is proof that though one may be a Christian in the covenantal sense, they were certainly not one in the decreetal sense.
To support his view, Wilson points again to two different kinds of metaphors in the Bible. There are those that talk of believers and unbelievers as 'ontologically different'. So, Peter can refer to unbelievers as sows and dogs (not sheep). Jesus can refer to them as goats (not sheep), or as tares (not wheat). Though they can be washed up, they aren't changed from a pig to a sheep; though they are in the same field, they aren't of the same seed. These metaphors which point to the ontological difference between believers and nonbelievers is viewing them from a decreetal perspective. Some are elect, others are not.
On the other hand, other metaphors can view believers and unbelievers as of the same stock, but different with regards to fruitfulness. So Jesus can refer to branches being broken off and tossed aside. There isn't a distinction between the branches kept and those lopped off except that one is fruitless and the other fruitful. This is a view from a covenantal perspective.
I want to do a lot more thinking and reading on this perspective. As I see it now, this understanding seems to 1) value the church as the covenant community - it is something valuable and real, 2) take the warnings against falling away seriously, 3) fits those warnings with the passages promising preservation by God in a healthy way. This understanding does flow from a controversial movement called Federal Vision, hence my reservations about recommending it wholesale. I'm honestly out of the loop on this, but it's a hot button issue in the Presbyterian Church of America. I'm open to thoughts, suggestions for further readings, push backs, etc.
Here's a short interview with Doug Wilson on this issue:
Perseverance of the Saint and Apostasy from Canon Wired on Vimeo.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
So Cruel...So Funny
I have to admit, I still don't see how Twitter is useful in any way, but I'm trying. On the plus side, this came across my Twitter feed yesterday.
Scientists Successfully Teach Gorilla It Will Die Someday
Scientists Successfully Teach Gorilla It Will Die Someday
Friday, April 29, 2011
Lutheran Pastors
With honor and respect for Rich, my Lutheran pastor friend...
Oh, and I had to add this one too:
Oh, and I had to add this one too:
Friday, April 22, 2011
It's Friday...but Sunday's coming
This is wonderful. There's a video you could watch on YouTube that combines this sermon excerpt with images from the Passion. I would, however, recommend not watching, but closing your eyes and just listening to this excerpt from S.M. Lockridge. It came across my feed from Justin Taylor's blog.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Rob Bell Not The Same as Lewis
A lot of fans of Bell's Love Wins have suggested that he is simply articulating Lewis' position on hell for a new generation. Wilson discusses this misunderstanding of Lewis.
Rob Bell no C.S. Lewis from Canon Wired on Vimeo.
Friday, February 25, 2011
The Tea Partier and the Christian Left
Matt showed me this video earlier today. Yeah, we were real busy. Anyway, it was funny, but even funnier the second time.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Song of the Week
I watched the Grammy's last night just to see this. It wasn't disappointing!
Mumford and Sons, Bob Dylan, and Avett Brothers
Mumford and Sons, Bob Dylan, and Avett Brothers
Monday, January 24, 2011
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
A Conference I'll be Skipping
Just ran across this:
"In presenting a theonomic view of biblical law, the foundation is often referred to as promoting theocracy and dominionism. According to the group's web site:
We believe that the whole Word of God must be applied to all of life. It is not only our duty as individuals, families and churches to be Christian, but it is also the duty of the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere to be under Christ the King. Nothing is exempt from His dominion. We must live by His Word, not our own.
The Chalcedon Foundation has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center."
Certainly Rushdoony, the founder, held pretty strong racist views. Besides that, he looks like Count Dooku!
<- Rushdoony :: Count Dooku ->
Providential History Festival Promo from ProvHistory on Vimeo.
Nope, don't think I'll be attending. Besides the hokeyness of it, it's promoted by the Chalcedon foundation - a "Christian educational organization devoted to research, publishing, and promoting Christian reconstruction in all areas of life." Sound good, but not so much. Here's a little more (from Wikipedia - not always the best source, to be sure):"In presenting a theonomic view of biblical law, the foundation is often referred to as promoting theocracy and dominionism. According to the group's web site:
We believe that the whole Word of God must be applied to all of life. It is not only our duty as individuals, families and churches to be Christian, but it is also the duty of the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere to be under Christ the King. Nothing is exempt from His dominion. We must live by His Word, not our own.
The Chalcedon Foundation has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center."
Certainly Rushdoony, the founder, held pretty strong racist views. Besides that, he looks like Count Dooku!
<- Rushdoony :: Count Dooku ->
Friday, November 05, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Coffee Lovers Commercial
I think it was Bob's discussion of great commercials this morning in the sermon that brought this to mind. I love coffee - hate ordering it!
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Great Video and an Important Lesson
So funny. Bob showed us this video today in our staff meeting.
What's so weird about this speech is how the passion and intensity rise at weird moments. He's excited. Ok, that's good. but he's running for treasurer! And he emphasizes odd things - like 'MA in COMMUNICATION', and Albert Einstein and 'INFESTATION'.
Wonder if we, as Christians, can learn something here. Does our emphasis fall on the right places - like the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Or, does the emphasis fall on odd places - like our political values, eschatological visions, views of manhood/womanhood, etc. Ok, really, I'm just trying to find a reason to post the video.
What's so weird about this speech is how the passion and intensity rise at weird moments. He's excited. Ok, that's good. but he's running for treasurer! And he emphasizes odd things - like 'MA in COMMUNICATION', and Albert Einstein and 'INFESTATION'.
Wonder if we, as Christians, can learn something here. Does our emphasis fall on the right places - like the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Or, does the emphasis fall on odd places - like our political values, eschatological visions, views of manhood/womanhood, etc. Ok, really, I'm just trying to find a reason to post the video.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Was The US Ever A Christian Nation?
Coming off the 4th of July weekend, I'm sure many heard sermons about returning our nation to it's Christian roots (though here at ECC, happily, no mention was even made of the fact that it was the 4th!). But was the US ever a Christian Nation? I thought I'd post this short video by Bryan Chapell, the president of Covenant Theological Seminary. He offers this very level headed answer to the question:Friday, June 25, 2010
Two Great Hits from Jake
These hits came in two different games, but he's turned into quite a little hitter! He's six, playing in the 7-8 yr. old league and doing well. Hopefully, I'll be able to post some Caleb highlights soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)