2007’s movie version of the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf can best be summed up as “creative.” The CGI graphics and 3-D presentation were impressive and a genuine step forward in filmmaking, but the most noticeable aspect of Beowulf is its pronounced departure from the original work. This is not simply the alteration of one or two scenes, but rather a complete reversal of theme and message. A friend jokingly said of the movie, “The only inaccuracy was the title!” This reaction is certainly justified once one realizes that the new screenplay completely reverses the character of Beowulf and indeed the message of the poem. Following an approach similar to Biblical Redaction criticisms, writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary effectively remove the original Christian fabric that have held together the tapestry which our literary canons have enjoyed for centuries. I would like to discover what questions the writers were seeking to answer through these alterations, as well as examine the underlying belief system to which they are committed. In doing this, an appropriate Christian response should become evident, as well as a better understanding of the conflict of ideas and beliefs that underlies the larger sociological landscape. Continue reading
Well since Remy linked to me I figure I’d better earn my keep. I can’t have him introducing all of his super hip friends to my site only to then let them all down with blather and droning.
Divine simplicity basically says that all of God’s attributes are all of God. God is all of his attributes. God’s goodness is Himself. He is his goodness.
This helps us in a couple of areas.
One, it keeps God personal. He isn’t having to satisfy his law. He is just being Himself. These two statements ought not be different, but you know as well as I do that there are many Evangelical presentations of the gospel which say “Yes, he is willing to forgive you, but He’s got to keep the law first.” That sort of statement is sort of true, sort of. And that’s what makes it problematic. Continue reading
This is just too good:
But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Of course, instead of saying that “the whole global warming thing” was a little over the top, what do we get? More “warnings”:
Let’s hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans — and most of the crops and animals we depend on — prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.
I guess there gonna have to change that Global Warming billboard on Clinton Blvd. now.
It rarely gets below 45 degrees in Mississippi, so I am not worried. Hope y’all Yanks (everyone north of me) can handle it though.
In his fine Brief Declaration, Bishop Ridley begins citing the church fathers for support that the doctrine did not exist in the early church. He begins with Origen, and moves on to Chrysostom, Theodoret, Tertullian, Augustine, and Gelasius. He also briefly mentions Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, and Nazianzen.
He quotes Chrysostom’s 11 homily on Matthew where he says, “If it be a fault (saith he) to translate the holy vessels (in the which is contained not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of the body) to private uses; how much more offence is it to abuse and defile the vessels of our body?” (pg. 32-33).
Notice that the “true body” is not the same as the “mystery of the body.”
Ridley also quotes Chrysostom’s ad Caearium monachum, in which he states, “Before the bread be hallowed, we call it bread: but, the grace of God sanctifying it by the means of the priest, it is delivered now from the name of bread and esteemed worthy to be called Christ’s body, although the nature of the bread tarry in it still” (34) Continue reading
Truly the vineyard of Jehovah of hosts is the house of Israel.Hitherto he spoke figuratively; now he shows what is the design of this song. Formerly he had threatened judgment against the Jews; now he shows that they are not only guilty, but are also held to be convicted persons; for they could not be ignorant of the benefits which they had received from God.
Their ingratitude was plain and manifest. Continue reading
While going through that on which faith is grounded, Reynolds lists the free love of God, the example of other sinners saved, and then the free offer. He writes:
Because there is a generality and unlimitedness in the invitation unto Christ, “Come unto me, all that are weary.– Let every one that will, come.” There is in Christ erected an office of salvation, a heavenly chancery of equity and mercy, not only to moderate the rigour, but to reverse and revoke the very acts of the law. Christ is ‘set forth,’ or proposed openly as a sanctuary and ensign for the nations to fly unto; and he hath sent his ambassadors abroad to warn, and to invite every man. As a fountain is open for any man to drink, and a school for any man to learn, and the gate fo a city for any man to enter, and a court of equity for any man to relieve himself;– so Christ is publicly and universally set forth as a general refuge from the wrath to come, upon no other condition than such a will as is not only desirous to enjoy his mercy, but to submit to his kingdom, and glorify the power of his spirit and grace in new obedience.
Life of Christ, pg. 454-455 in The Whole Works of the Edward Reynolds Vol. 1 (Soli Deo Gloria)
Reynolds goes on to add the priority of grace in the conversion of the sinner, as well as our duty to faith. These are the reasons we are to believe and the grounds upon which faith builds.
Jacob encounters God as a friend at Bethel (Gen. 28:10- 22). He encounters God a second time at Peniel as an opponent (Gen. 32:24-32). Continue reading
So I went and dug up my old old old blogger for the purpose of retrieving valuable resource material. I have copied over most of the church history quotes that I had blogged, and I will likely add a few more in the coming days. Sorry for the overload of new posts, but it is better to have them all in one place.
I now have a Mercersburg category which has lots of good stuff to check out.
It is certainly true that when children of believers reach the age of discernment [and have never repented or believed] they will have alienated themselves from God and destroyed utterly the truth of baptism. But this is not to say that our Lord has not elected them and separated them from others in order to grant them His salvation. Otherwise, it would be in vain for Saint Paul to say that a child of a believing father or mother is sanctified, who would be impure if he were born of and descended from unbelievers (1 Cor. 7:14).
John Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines pg. 52
Another difference [between Modern Theology and Mercersburg Theology] is in their central iea. Modern theology makes the atonement or death of Christ, Mercersburg the person of Chirst or the incarnation, its central idea. The importance of this difference can be seen in the fact, for instance, that the atonement itself, or justification by faith, cannot be maintained successfully by adopting the former. According to it, the atonement is made to rest primarily on what Christ has done, not on what he is. It apprehends Christ as a mere individual, God and man in one person, it is true, but yet as a mere individual. Mercersburg theology apprehends Christ as the embodiment of the universal life of humanity, the second Adam or federal head of the race’ and his obedience and death receive their atoning merits from this fact. When he was nailed to the cross, more than a mere individual was nailed to the cross– humanity itself– was nailed to the cross; consequently whatever merits attach to his suffering and death belong to the race as a whole– not to one individual simply– nor to a limited number of individuals– nor to all individuals numerically considered– but to humanity as a whole (which is something more, and deeper, and broader and more universal, than any number of mere individuals),– subject to appropriation by all who claim them for their individual wants.
If Christ had been a mere individual, one among many, no such universal atonement nor even a limited atonement, could have been possible. The merits of his death could apply no farther than to himself, and the idea of the atonement, as available for others, falls to the ground. The idea of one individual dying for the crimes of another individual, does not satisfy the demands of justice. The doctrine of the atonement must be apprehended in a profounder sense than this comes to, and this depends on a proper conception of the person of Christ.
Samuel Miller, A Treatise on Mercersburg Theology; or, Mercersburg and Modern Theology Compared pg. 19-21