The Song of Hiawatha

I read Evangeline this month and fell immediately in love with Longfellow. He is dramatically overlooked. Frost gets too much credit as the premier American author. No one, no one I have ever read, conveys the spirit and sense of the American idyllic landscape like Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. I would not know or care about poetry if it were not for this man.

This is a spiritual blog right? So why am I talking about poetry? Christians need to reclaim good poetry and song-writing. We, of all people, should know and have the deepest and most dramatic feelings for the things God has made. We should love the creation and be fluent in praising God for it, because it was His idea. Good verse, for some reason I don't understand yet, communicates the beautiful and the terrible stronger even than does good prose.

This said, I just finished The Song of Hiawatha. It is a poem I heartily recommend. It is a beautiful and intricate introduction into the idolatrous workings of the American Indians and, in a way, communicates the tragedy of our having destroyed them. It is also a masterpiece of idyllic writing taking place next to Lake Superior (Gitche Gumee) and basically throughout America. Passages like this are what made me fall in love with poetry,

"By the shore of Gitche Gummee,
By the shining Big-Sea-Water,
At the doorway of his wigwam,
In the pleasant Summer morning,
Hiawatha stood and waited.
All the air was full of freshness,
All the earth was bright and joyous,
And before him, through the sunshine,
Westward toward the neighboring forest,
Passed in golden swarms the Ahmo,
Passed the bees, the honey-makers,
Burning, singing, in the sunshine.
Bright above him shone the heavens,
Level spread the lake before him;
From its bosom leaped the sturgeon,
Sparkling, flashing in the sunshine;
On its margin the great forest
Stood reflected in the water,
Every tree top had its shadow,
Motionless beneath the water."

Incredible. This reflects every sense and every emotion I have ever felt in the wilderness of the Great Lakes and pushes down into my deepest thoughts with its beautiful meter and rythmic explanations. I have seen the fish glisten in sunshine, the bees buzz through the forest, and felt the summer morning fresh in its new dawning. We ought to re-embrace poetry of this sort and claim it for the glory of God. We ought to write poetry that makes people say, "I've been there," and long to be there again.

Soli Deo Gloria,

R. D. Thompson

One Reason School Can Be Bad

One reason school can be bad is because you cram loads of information into your head which you have no intention of ever remembering.

The greatest of all my triumphs in school has been passing the dreaded biology with an A. How I did it I will never know. The funny thing is...I remember nothing. I was just going through my old quizzes and found an answer I recorded on a quiz from memory. Just listen to this,

"The T&T complex serves to cover the actin filament inhibiting the myosin head from attaching and contracting. When a nerve impulse hits the synapse on a muscle, Acetycholine distributes over the plasma membrane which causes an action potential that spreads through the T-tubles. When the T-tbules depolarize Ca is released by the sarcoplasmic reticulum into the cytoplasm. Ca attaches to the troponin complex and displaces tropomyosin allowing the myosin head to attach to actin and contract."

Um...excuse me?

I pray to God I remember my theology better than that answer which I have utterly forgotten!

What is an actin filament?

Soli Deo Gloria,

R. D. Thompson

My Year In Photos

Thank God for Al Mohler

Hope you read Mohler today. If you didn't you must. He speaks on the topic of how more and more evangelicals are stepping out of evangelical bounds and proclaiming that there are many paths to heaven. He gives such a coherent reason for this dangerous universalism,

"The disappearance of doctrinal understanding and evangelical demonstration can be traced directly to the decline in expository preaching and doctrinal instruction. A loss of evangelistic and missionary commitment can be fully expected as a direct result of this confusion or repudiation of the Gospel."

Yeah that's just about it! Love it.

Also, go check out his interview with Lisa Miller on NPR in debate over her incredibly controversial Newsweek cover story on what the Bible "really says" about homosexuality. Note well what she says about the Bible and how coherent Mohler sounds next to this woman. Note also that the only conservative Christian caller who made any sense totally rocked Lisa Miller when he said she may as well say the Bible is legitimizing polygamy! She had no words...none. She couldn't speak! Mohler said, "Well his line of reasoning sounds fantastic."

Mohler is great. Give him your ears.

R. D. Thompson

Ask My Mom Sometime...

William Saletan - Embryo Freezing is Immoral!

I recently discovered William Saletan of Slate.com via R. Albert Mohler Jr. I recommend reading some of his articles, they're brilliant and a much needed voice in the world of popular liberal thought.

While cultural commentary is not particularly my forte, today's article bears mentioning.

Speaking of IVF and the "problem" couple's face when it comes to allowing it to be adopted, or really when it comes to do SOMETHING with it, Saletan shows that the reason the couple has a "crisis" is because they never thought through what to do with the embryo afterward.

This shows a massive disdain, a serious overlooking of the consequences of creating a human life.

"The patients and doctors are preoccupied with making a baby. If you get one, congratulations. Anything extra is an afterthought."

Of course, as Christians we know this attitude is corrupt (I know nothing of the status of Saletan's soul so I refer primarily to myself and the main readership of this blog).

Brilliantly,

"We treat the leftovers as raw material, available to be used or thrown away. But they aren't raw material. Eggs and sperm are raw material. Embryos are what we make with that material. They're us."

It is disgusting to me that this argument even has to be made over and over again. Of course this is the way life works but no one even thinks about it anymore. On the side with abortion you have women (and men!) who want to have sex and never be held responsible for anything and then here you have people who are obssessed with simply making a baby but care little what happens once it's made, or at least don't think about what to do once it's made. They refuse to be held responsible.

The article is stimulating no doubt. Give it a good look.

Loving the unborn to the glory of God,

R. D. Thompson

The Gospel in Three Minutes

December Photos

BE CAREFUL WHILE KISSING!

Why on earth does Reuters think this is news? Moreover, why is it number six in popularity for news of the day right to next to economic crisis and Greek rioting?

Do be careful when you kiss,

"While kissing is normally very safe, doctors advise people to proceed with caution."

Thanks for the news Reuters. I think a hearty LOL is appropriate here.

Wow...

R. D. Thompson

Advent Songs Free CD...Incredible

This stuff rocks. Not your standard Christmas arrangements.

I only paid a dollar...I'd pay more if I could. This album is seriously incredible.

Do I Really Walk Around With My Nose In a Book?

It's been a good year when I can point to a stack of books longer than my gangly arm and say without blushing or lying, "I read every one of those books." It lends a certain satisfaction to look back at all of the books I set out to read and, in astonishment, realize that by the grace of God I read them all! I have a passion for reading and I want you to read too so I thought I'd let you in a bit on what went through my hands this year. You will notice in the following list that I am not a stuffy old geezer who never touches anything but theology. There is a healthy balance between strong theological books and fun fiction. I have two categories: books I read cover to cover and books I read heavily in. I skipped books I read lightly in because then the list would be longer than my leg and my arm combined. Those don't really count anyway.

Cover to cover Non-Fiction:
(1) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. - John Calvin
(2) The Bondage of the Will - Martin Luther
(3) Francis Schaeffer: A Biography - Colin Duriez
(4) The End of Reason - Ravi Zacharias
(5) Israel and the Church - Ronald Diprose
(6) Culture Shift - R. Albert Mohler Jr.
(7) Who Needs Theology? - Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson
(8) Across the Spectrum - Gregory Boyd
(9) Do Hard Things - Alex and Brett Harris
(10) Walking From East to West - Ravi Zacharias
(11) Art and the Bible - Francis Schaeffer
(12) Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - Eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem
(13) Discovering Biblical Equality - Eds. Ronald Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothius
(14) Understanding the Church - Eds. Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III
(15) Essentials pf Missionary Service - Ken Fleming
(16) Through Gates of Splendor - Elisabeth Elliot
(17) What In the World is God Doing? - Gordon Olson
(18) George Mueller - Richard Steer

Most memorable of this list was: The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, Israel and the Church by Ronald Diprose, Francis Schaeffer by Colin Duriez, The Institutes of the Christian Rleigion by John Calvin, and Walking from East to West by Ravi Zacharias.

My all time favorite of the year for non-fiction was The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther.

Most awful of this list was: Discovering Biblical Equality compiled by Eds. Pierce and Groothius.

Why I read non-fiction this year: Because I LOVE to learn new things!

Positions I changed because of what I read: I think I may seriously prefer the Lutheran method of interpreting the Bible through the lens of Law and Gospel. . .happy birthday to me I'm a Lutheran?!

The Top Ten Non-Fiction Books I Started But Didn't Finish Yet Fully Intend To:
(1) Italy: A Short History - Harry Hearder
(2) The Italians - Luigi Barzini
(3) Europe Today and Tomorrow - Joseph Ratzinger
(4) Solomon Among the Postmoderns - Peter J. Leithart
(5) L'abri - Edith Schaeffer
(6) Christianity and Liberalism - J. Gresham Machen
(7) What's So Great About the Doctrines of Grace? - R.D. Phillips
(8) Future Israel - Barry Horner
(9) Letter to a Christian Nation - Sam Harris
(10) The Gospel According to Jesus - John Macarthur

Cover to Cover Fiction:
(1) The Lord of The Rings - Tolkien

• The Two Towers
• The Return of the King

(2) Keeping Holiday - Starr Meade
(3) His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman

• The Golden Compass
• The Subtle Knife
• The Amber Spyglass

(6) The Chronicles of Narnia - C.S. Lewis

• The Magician's Nephew
• The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
• The Horse and His Boy
• Prince Caspian
• The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
• The Silver Chair
• The Last Battle

(7) The Shack - William P. Young
(8) Island of the Blue Dolphins - Scott O'Dell
(9) Five Novels by P.G. Wodehouse

• The Return of Jeeves
• Bertie Wooster Sees it Through
• Spring Fever
• The Butler Did It
• The Old Reliable

(10) Five Novels by Agatha Christie

• The Mirror Crack'd
• A Caribbean Mystery
• Nemesis
• What Mrs. McGillicuddy Saw!
• The Body in the Library

Most memorable of this list was: The Last Battle by Lewis, Nemesis by Agatha Christie, Keeping Holiday by Starr Meade, and The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman.

My all time favorite of the year for fiction was The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman.

Most awful of this list was: The Shack by William P. Young (poor literature and heresy).

Why I read fiction this year: Because during the wildness of school suicide wasn't an option!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Book That Most Shaped Me This Year a.k.a My Book of the Year: The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As I said, this was an excellent year. Looking back I never would have supposed I could read so many books. It's amazing. Praise God. A little lesson before I go. Don't think about how many books you want to read. Sure, make a list, but then never look at it again. Just read. Five pages a day equals 1,820 pages in a year. That means YOU could read the Institutes of the Christian Religion in FIVE PAGES A DAY OVER THE COURSE OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR! Wanna know how long that takes? About twenty minutes if you're slow and about ten if you're mid range. Chances are, five won't be enough and you'll want to read ten. Ten pages a day is 3,640 pages in a year. That basically covers The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia. It really isn't that hard to read. I promise. If you do just a little bit every day you will feel both productive and will learn great amounts. This of course, is not part of your Bible reading. You must not read more than you read your Bible! READ YOUR BIBLE! READ GOOD BOOKS!

Soli Deo Gloria!

R.D. Thompson

Evangeline: You All Should Read It

I know you all believe that I just say this about every book I ever read. It isn't true. I only recommend the books I like. You're all like, "Oh he ALWAYS says, 'This book is amazing!'" Sure...but I never said, "This book is junk," after I read The Shack, or What In The World Is God Doing?, or What Love Is This?, or the myriads of other pieces of not-so-amazing writing I go through per year. Contrary to popular opinion I do not recommend every book I read.

You should all read Evangeline by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. It makes incredible bed time reading. It will amaze you with its astounding alliterations. It will make your face glow and your mind wander with its beautiful idyllic descriptions. You are being seriously "gypped" if you don't read this. It really isn't hard either. I found it more like entertainment than obligation.

I, therefore, am periodically going to place my favorite sections of Evangeline in posts on occasion. You will love them.

Recently I had the privilege of preaching in a church in Acadiana in Louisiana. I used to think that anyone from Louisiana was a "hick" but after this trip have totally changed my mind. Louisiana is one of the most beautiful states, with one of the most interesting subcultures, and some of the greatest food, I have ever encountered. And I have encountered a lot. Amazingly, I picked up Evangeline with no previous knowledge of what it was about. It is about the exile of the French from Nova Scotia to various places in the US. Louisiana was one of these places. Longfellow's description fit my brief experience exactly and made me wish I wasn't in Dubuque freezing with two inches of snow. Just listen to his idyllic rendering of this lovely place,

“Welcome once more, my friends, who long
have been friendless and homeless,
Welcome once more to a home, that is better
perchance than the old one!
Here no hungry winter congeals our blood like
the rivers;
Here no stony ground provokes the wrath of
the farmer.
Smoothly the ploughshare runs through
soil, as keel through the water.
All year round the orange groves are in
blossom; and grass grows
More in a single night than a whole Canadian
summer.
Here, too, numberless herds run wild and un-
claimed in the prairies;
Here, too, lands may be had for the asking,
and forests of timber
With a few blows of the axe are hewn and
framed into houses.
After your houses are built and your fields
are yellow with harvests.”

I have never read poetry I liked. I love this. This described exactly how I felt about Louisiana. Exactly. I mean, minus the numberless herds that aren't there anymore and the free land, I loved every inch of that poem. I promise you will too. Stay tuned for more incredible excerpts.

Loving the Truth with a capital T (which encompasses poetry!),

R. D. Thompson

God and Mumbai

Do not think that God does not care and that He does not plan on using Mumbai somehow. Do not think that God is using this to judge those sinful Muslims and Hindus. Do not think that God does not have His almighty sovereign hand in, on, and over Mumbai. Grumbling, fury, and rebellion get us nowhere with Him from whom we should accept both good and adversity (Job 2:10).

What end do tragedies like Mumbai serve? As with theTower of Siloam and Pilate's human sacrifices they are there to remind you and me and all people that, "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish," (Luke 13:3).

All things belong to Him. All things are under his sovereign orchestration. All things are upheld by the "word of His power," (Heb 1:3). From the death of Naomi's husband and sons (Ruth 1:1-5, 13, 21) to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans whom God unbelievably "raised up," (Hab 1:6) God knows it all and holds it all in the palm of His hand.

As Abraham Kuyper has famously stated, "there is not one square inch over which the risen Christ does not say 'Mine!'"

Rather than responding in rebellion, fury, and despair respond with weeping for the dead, sorrow for the lost, and praise to God who, "is good and does good," (Ps 119:68) whether it is through the gospel spoken to the poor or through the gun of a terrorist.

Perhaps this should even be a wake up call to you and I of India's desperate need of missionaries.

The Bible does not allow us to degrade God and get Him "off the hook" when it comes to things like Mumbai, He is sovereignly in charge, but it does call for our worship of the benevolent, personal, great, mighty, powerful, and holy God of the universe whose rock solid hope we can rejoice in even in the greatest of tribulations (Rom 5:3-5) and most certainly calls us to repentance so that we do not perish in the same way.

Soli Deo Gloria

R. D. Thompson

Why I Love Doc Fish

1) He pastors me intellectually as well as practically.

2) He preaches with authority (Greek text in hand!)

3) He loves his wife and it is obvious.

4) He doesn't mind being harangued by me and my friends for his quirks and happily returns the favor.

5) He is a good friend.

6) He has always helped me in my sermon making!

R. D. Thompson

One Does Not Simply

The Paramount Practicality of Looking to Christ for Assurance

Assurance is, without a doubt, the greatest struggle I will ever deal with in my life. I use the present tense there because this is still something I labor with. I labor with it with all my might. Why? Because even though I know I'm saved God is still holy, and righteous, and just, and I still sin!

Calvin, always of great benefit in the enunciation of beautiful Scriptural truths, says this,

"God, who is the highest righteousness, cannot love the unrighteousness He sees in all. All of us, therefore, have in ourselves something deserving of God's hatred. With regard to our corrupt nature and the wicked life that follows it, all of us surely displease God, are guilty in His sight, and are born to the damnation of hell."

Are we screwed up? Yup. It always bothers me when people "Hate the sin but love the sinner." This is exactly how Christians should live. But it stings me when people say that that is how God acts. God does not just hate the sin and love all sinners. God hates the sinner. That is why, if he remains a sinner he will spend eternity in hell suffering physical, eternal, conscious torment. Hence, we should tremble. If we do not tremble before God in light of this truth we will never understand the gospel and will never find any hope in God. This is rough truth no doubt but Calvin does not leave it there (praise God it never ends there),

"But because the Lord wills not to lose what is his in us, out of his own kindness he still finds something to love. However much we may be sinners by our own fault, we nevertheless remain his creatures. However much we have brought death upon ourselves, yet he has created us unto life. Thus he is moved by pure and freely given given love of us into grace. Since there is a perpetual and irreconcilable disagreement between righteousness and unrighteousness, so long as we remain sinners he cannot receive us completely. Therefore, to take away all cause for enmity and to reconcile us utterly to himself, he wipes out all evil in us by the expiation set forth in the death of Christ; that we, who were previously unclean and impure, may show ourselves righteous and holy in his sight."

I find this repeatedly to be the constant theme of my life. I pray, "God, I've got nothing. I come with nothing. I have no righteousness. I shouldn't even be in your presence arrogantly believing that I the finite should be speaking to you the infinite. I should be dead even in thinking about it. But here, look, I have Jesus. He is holy. May I therefore come into your presence and rest in you since He is holy?" You know what the answer is every time? "I sacrificed my Son that you could come into presence and enjoy rest. You are a sinner, and I do not easily forget sins, but you are covered by the blood of my Son. I will choose to see His righteousness over your sin. Enter." I am beginning to think that real assurance comes from the fact that every day, every single day, is marked by a struggle with sin in which we come and lay prostrate before the God who created us and beg for mercy through Jesus and find it given again, and again, and again. Calvin again,

"Therefore, by his love God the Father goes before and anticipates our reconciliation in Christ. Indeed, 'Because he first loved us" [I John 4:19], he afterward reconciles us to himself. But until Christ succors us by his death, the unrighteousness that deserves God's indignation remains in us, and is accursed and condemned before him. Hence, we can be fully and firmly joined with God only when Christ joins us with him."

So what's the key to being sure? What's they key to real lasting hope?

"If, then, we would be assured that God is pleased with and kindly disposed towards us, we must fix our eyes and minds on Christ alone. For, actually, through him alone we escape the imputation of our sins to us - an imputation bringing with it the wrath of God."

That is what the gospel is about: the death, resurrection and mediating work of Jesus Christ. When it all seems futile and like I am failing miserably and shall never earn my way to heaven I should look up and realize I will never earn my way to heaven! No kidding! It's all found in Jesus. My hope is in Jesus. No one, especially myself, will find a reconciled and peaceful audience with the Father lest it be through the shed blood of Christ. Hallelujah!

He died for our sins. He brings us to God. We can be assured of this.

R.D. Thompson

Does This Post Even Need Text?

The Roman Church Started Right

I believe that the Roman Church started in the right place and that, contrary to some overly strong and frightened Protestant opinions, many of the Roman leaders through the middle-ages and into the Reformation were saved. Now that doesn't mean that I think all of them were saved and that I think the Pope was a good guy. For the most part, He wasn't a good and godly guy at all and the Church (yes I capitalized that for a reason) fell into decay under his leadership and HAD to be reformed.

Now that's a statement that is going to make people mad, especially those of us who are so Protestant that the name "Roman Church" makes hackles raise and shouts of "dirty Ecumenical!" begin ringing throughout the land as happens when any Protestant dares to sympathize. Now hang on just a minute and bear with me because I'm not the only one in on this opinion. In fact I'm in good company with none other than John Calvin!

In a chapter titled, "The Condition of the Ancient Church, and the Kind of Government in Use Before the Papacy" Calvin notes some interesting figures in Church history who usually take a little more flack than they should saying things which I don't know if we all realize they said. He also notes that the ancient Church's primary goal between Paul the Apostle and around Gregory the Great was the preaching of the gospel and the distribution of money to and care for the poor.

For instance you have Gregory the Great (Pope 589-604) saying such wonderful things as,

"A bishop dies if no sound is heard from him; for he calls upon himself the wrath of the hidden Judge, if he goes without the sound of preaching."

Indeed, Gregory knew that the Church was in trouble around his time because he also says that,

"When Paul testifies that he is clean of the blood of all [Acts 20:26], by this statement we are convicted, we are constrained, we are shown guilty - we who are called bishops, we who (besides possessing our own evils) add also the deaths of others. For we kill many as we, lukewarm and silent, see going to their death each day."

Do you know what amazes me so much about that statement? Gregory was not just some fat pope "drinking wine out of a bowl and sitting on lush cushions" and totally ignoring the needs of the people both spiritually and physically. Gregory KNEW there was a problem and last I checked KNOWING the problem is a major part of the battle. The Church had forgotten what it meant to be the Church in spiritual and physical testimony and he knew it. Calvin, of all people, in immediate confirmation of these statements says,

"He calls himself and others 'silent,' for they were less constant in their work than they should have been. Since he spares not even those who half fulfilled their office, what do you think he would have done if anyone had ceased entirely? Therefore, it was a principle of a long standing in the church that the primary duties of the bishop were to feed his people with the Word of God, or to build up the church publicly or privately with sound doctrine."

Even Calvin realizes it. The Church was doing what is supposed to be doing and was, in fact, the Church prior to the Reformation. Ford Lewis Battles, English translator of Calvin's "Institutes" says it obviously,

"Note that Calvin views the age of Gregory as between the ancient purity of the church and its medieval decay."

Some people are far too quick to dismiss anything that happened between Constantine and Luther as "Just the Roman Catholics," and figures that none of them were saved or had anything to contribute. In my humble historical understanding this seems a terrible and completely illiterate historical naivete. We should be very careful not to just dump everything that happened in the years prior to the Reformation as useless in our understanding of the Church as she is.

Not that there weren't problems, but what age of the Church hasn't had problems? I think if you consider it closely we are in much the same position as they were with corrupt and overly dominant leaders who are in it for money or fame. But what people fail to understand is that there were holy God fearing people (the Albert Mohlers and Paul Washers of today) who understood these problems and spoke against them. Calvin again,

"And so this song is often sung there to bishops and deacons, that they should remember that they are not handling their own goods but those appointed for the need of the poor; and if in bad faith they suppress or waste them, they shall be guilty of blood. Accordingly, they are admonished to distribute these goods to whom they are owed, with the greatest awe and reverence, as if in God's presence, without partiality. Hence arise those grave protestations in Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine and other bishops like them, by which they affirm their uprightness among the people."

What did these guys who called the Church out to holiness say?

"Cyril, when famine seized the province of Jerusalem and the distress could not otherwise be relieved, sold vessels and vestments, and spent the money on poor relief. Similarly, Acacius, Bishop of Amida, when a great multitude of Persians was well nigh dying from famine, calling together his clergy, delivered this famous speech: 'Our God needs neither plates nor cups, for he neither eats nor drinks." Then he melted the vessels to obtain both food and the price of ransom for the pitiable folk. . .Experius, bishop of Toulouse in his day. . .carried the Lord's body in a wicker basket and his blood in a glass vessel, but suffered no poor man to hunger."

Wow. It would be amazing if we had more leaders whose belief and strong and wonderful doctrine actually led them to the place where these guys lived who, supposedly, ruined the Church! You're not even ready for the next bit. Calvin nails iy by saying,

"What I just now said about Acacius, Ambrose states about himself, for the Arians reproached him for having broken the sacred vessels to ransom prisoners, he used this wonderful excuse, "He who sent out the apostles without gold also gathered churches without gold. The church has gold not to keep but to pay out, and to relieve distress. What need to keep what helps not? Or are we ignorant of how much gold and silver the Assyrians carted off from the Temple of the Lord [II Kings 18:15-19]? Would it not be better for the priest to melt it to sustain the poor, if other aid is lacking, than for a sacrilegious enemy to bear it away? Will not the Lord say, 'Why you allowed so many needy to die of hunger? Surely you had gold with which to minister sustenance. Why were so many prisoners carried off and not ransomed? Why were so many killed by the enemy? It were better for you to preserve the vessels men than of metals.' To these you cannot give reply, for what would you say? 'I was afraid lest the temple of God lack ornament.' He would reply: 'The sacraments do not require gold, nor do those things please with gold that are not bought with gold. The ornament of the sacraments is the ransom of prisoners.'"

Why on earth do we just skip out on stuff like this? We shortchange ourselves historically if we ignore the greats of the past with stupid phrases like, "Augustine wasn't saved."

The ancient church and, believe it or not, some of the Roman church got some things right friends; let's not be too quick to dismiss them. I had always had a hunch that this was the case but it didn't really click until I read some of this stuff. Calvin one last time, "To sum up, what the same man [Ambrose] said in another place we see to be very true: 'Whatever, then, the church had was for the support of the needy.' Likewise: 'The bishop had nothing that did not belong to the poor.'"

I do not excuse the tragedies of the Roman church. I do not excuse the corruption of the papacy. I do not deny that justification is by faith alone and that one is not saved without being justified before the totally holy and totally righteous God. I do, however, think that we should stop committing the Protestant naivete, and it is driven by fear really, of ignoring what was said between the fourth and sixteenth centuries.

This would be very unwise and I caution you against it. Go read Bernard, or Francis of Assisi, or Gregory the Great, or Ambrose, or Augustine, or Chrysostom, or Anselm, or any of the other numerous wonderful Christians in the medieval ages and I think you will find far more of the gospel than you realize.

Loving our wonderful holy God with you brethren (and sistren!),

R.D. Thompson

In order to preach to pop culture you need to know pop culture

Driscoll does it all the time. How involved should we be?

The Best Lead Line Ever

Do you have a favorite lead line? You know, the opening line that simply forces you to keep reading? Mine is from "The God Who is There"

"The present chasm between the generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the concept of truth."

You Must Go See This

CLICK HERE FOR DYING WORTHY VIDEO!

Go. Now. Watch. Die laughing.

Secular Music

To tell you the truth, I cannot stomach some of the reasons people come up with for watching raunchy and disgusting TV shows and movies. "But it's FUNNY," they say (The Office, That 70's Show, Friends when it was popular, Family Guy, The Simpsons). "I just like it," they say (House, and other overly dramatic and stupid shows of the like). These are the least thought out excuses I have ever heard, even though the last one is not necessarily wrong as you will soon see.

I take a purely Schafferian view of art movies and most of the well thought secular music of today. There is something, particularly about music, that holds the finger to the pulse of the culture at large. Not artists who are only in it for money (like Britney Spears...blech) but artists who ditch labels so they can make their music, movies, and art the way they want to how they want to. These people are making an incredible value statement, and dare I say a worldview statement, simply by making their music independently. These people, generally, have something to say and love music because music is wonderful and if we would prefer not to remain ignorant to just what the young people dying for truth believe today we would be wise to introduce ourselves to it.

Not only that but some art, especially good art, is to be enjoyed simply because it is good art and then critiqued and only then possibly rejected. Just listen to Schaeffer,

"A work of art has a value in itself. For some, this principle may seem too obvious to mention, but for many Christians it is unthinkable. And yet, if we miss this point, we miss the very essence of art. Art is not something we merely analyze or value for its intellectual content. It is something to be enjoyed. The Bible says that the art work in the tabernacle and the temple was for beauty. . .As a Christian we know why a work of art has value. Why? First, because a work of art is a work of creativity , and creativity has value because God is the creator. . .Second, an art work has value as a creation because man is made in the image of God, and therefore man can not only love and think and feel emotion, but also has the capacity to create."

And further,

"Many modern artists, it seems to me, have forgotten the value that art has in itself. Much modern art is far too intellectual to be great art. . .[they] seem not to see the distinction between man and non-man, and it is a part of the lostness of modern man that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art. I am afriad, however, that as evangelicals we have largely made the same mistake. Too often we think that a work of art has value only if we reduce it to a tract. This too is to view art solely as a message for the intellect."

To tell you the honest truth I listen to a lot more secular music than your average fundamentalist Christian attending a Plymouth Brethren Assembly. I won't go near movies or TV (I have willingly only watched Ratatouille, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Luther and one episode of The Office because I was on an airplane in the last three years) but I listen to greats of our day (of course by greats I may mean totally obscure independent artists who sound great) every day. Like who? To name only a few Postal Service, Jack Johnson, Bob Dylan, Dave Brubeck, Norah Jones, Her Space Holiday, Andy Hunter, Juno Reactor, George Winston, Kaki King, Trentmoeller, Telepopmusik, DJ Shadow, and many others. I am not in poor company either. Would you believe Mark Dever listens to and quote, "loves" Jack Johnson? Or that Josh Harris and his brothers do the same?

Mind you, we need to be very, very careful how we put this into practice. Schaeffer again,

"Not every creation is good art. Nor is all that man makes good either, intellectually or morally. So while creativity is a good thing in itself, it does not mean that everything that comes out of man's creativity is good. For while man was made in the image of God, he is fallen. Furthermore, since men have various gifts and talents, everyone cannot create everything equally well. However, the main point is that creativity is a good thing as such."

I think it is wise that we move past our ugly fundamentalist roots in this area and listen to the man who could give that caution but who also actively listened to Jefferson Airplane and The Beatles (and ENJOYED it), the man who considered himself largely a separatist but who watched the art films of his day and perused and understood (and ENJOYED) the work of Salvador Dali (who was the most messed up of the surrealists), the man who ached for the lostness of these souls and longed with every ounce of his being to bring them into the fold of God which in no small way required his interaction with them and enjoyment of them.

Secular artists are not speaking into a vacuum and are not speaking for no reason. Much of their art is of a far greater and superior quality to most Christian art and they are asking far deeper questions than most Christians are asking which is proved almost every day when I listen to Christian music or look at sappy Christian "art" or read some of the awful modern Christian writing that passes for fiction. I believe we ought to very carefully, cautiously, and discerningly be engaging in secular music and art 1) because a whole lot of it is fantastic in and of itself and 2) because we do a disservice to the people we preach to by alienating ourselves from them in this way.

Not that you won't get the gospel across if you don't, but it is a whole lot more helpful, and even introduces new evangelism inroads, if you understand this cultural pulse.

Loving our wonderful Christ who died "on our behalf" with you brethren,

R.D. Thompson

October Photos

Only 3 Bullets

Let the reader be warned, stupid hunting stories are about to commence so read forward only if that sort of thing interests you.

I finally shot an elk and I finally shot an animal in less than 15 bullets.

Storytime:

When I was 13 I shot my first deer. I got a little excited and ran up to the edge of a gully and saw deer on the other side about 900 yards away. After opening fire (at 900 yards) on any animal that I saw in my scope (otherwise known as flock shooting) I had expended 6 bullets and, as far as I could tell, had not actually hit anything. We ran down the canyon to where the animals had run and they were all waiting nicely to see what we were and why we were chasing them (deer are stupid doncha know?) so I opened fire again (at about 200 yards this time) and expended 6 more bullets...without visibly hitting anything. So the deer got the point that time and all we saw was a rather large grey streak (the whole herd) vanish away over a ridge some 2000 yards away. I didn't try to shoot that time. We went up on the hillside to look down and see if I had hit anything for some bizarre reason and, voila, I had...7 times...in various random places. I will never know how I hit the same animal 7 times when I was flock shooting but hey, I was 13, and it was amazin.

Sadly...the stories of my quick trigger finger don't end there. Like the time I did the exact same thing the next year and somehow managed to get a deer shooting wildly at 1000 yards, uphill, across a canyon. Or the time I gut shot a 5 point buck at 50 yards and then subsequently missed every shot I tried to make up as it ran away (missed at 100, then 150, then 200, then 250, then it vanished into the trees.) Or the time I aimed 8 feet over the back of an elk because I thought it was 800 yards away when it was really only about 100. Or the time I did finally shoot an antelope in 15+ bullets as it ran away from me.

So...I actually killed my animal in 3 bullets this time...and 1 of them wasn't necessary.

I was tracking through the woods at a place I knew there were elk way up in a huge mess of trees, fallen trees, and undergrowth. You really couldn't see more than 200 yards at best in that mess so I wasn't more hopeful than sneaking up on their beds (I had done it before in this specific place...unsuccessfully of course after I made an errant shot that hit nothing but trees.) I had left my dad and brother about 15 minutes earlier on the road when I heard gunshots ring out just over the hill from me...right where dad and brother were...dang. But then the herd that they had shot at ran over the hill...right at me. Unfortunately, the animals had my wind so before I could see anything more than the lead bull (7 points of gorgeousness that I couldn't shoot) charge through the tree 20 yards away from me they had scattered into 2 herds and run away from me. But that wasn't the end by any means. Dad and brother had taken a number of animals out of the herd so this herd was in confusion looking for its lost members. That meant it was a great time for me to make a calf call. THAT confused them. Was I the missing calf or was I a dangerous hunter? The cows of the herd proceeded to check out my credentials by repeatedly calling me to the herd and the bulls furiously bugled back and forth to try and get the herd reunited. No animals would walk to me though. That meant I had to go find them...in thick undergrowth...with a top visibility of 200 yards at best and a low visibility of about 10 yards at worst. Elk are smart, they know (somehow) to stay just out of sight ahead of you and make calls back at you as they try and figure out what you are. I had the wind this time and moved slowly towards them. However, every time I would set to shoot one of the blasted things they would prance another 50 yards away out of sight. This happened about 10 times when a calf made the unfortunate mistake of standing in a gap in the trees about 200 yards away from me. Now, this had happened 6 times in the proceeding nonsense but I could never see a head. Number one rule while hunting in undergrowth: if you can't see a head, don't shoot it. The DOW doesn't accept stories about how you accidentally shot a 7 point bull in the forest when you meant to shoot a cow because you couldn't see the head. Anyway, this elk had made the unfortunate mistake of NOT prancing away just as I got set to shoot. I took my deep sniper breath and calmly (for the first time in my life) squeezed the trigger. After the shot rang out...the animal didn't move...it just looked at me. I took another shot and didn't see the animal in my scope anymore. Something similar had happened last time I was in these woods so I cautiously walked up the hill in case it was standing there looking at me still. I figured that, as usual, I had entirely missed the beast and it had run away and I would expend ANOTHER 12 bullets before I would actually kill anything. As I walked up and looked around I spotted it. I almost couldn't believe it...it was laying down, looking at me, obviously wounded. Well it was still alive so I had to finishe the job, which I did, and then stood in utter disbelief. I had actually harvested my animal in 3 bullets and when I had quatered the animal I found out that 1 of the shots wasn't necessary as I had hit the first time in the front quarter and the second time in the back quarter.

My hunting friends (dad, brother, and grandpa) couldn't believe it. Their jaws dropped. Their standard fun making for my trigger happy days are ended.

I had a good weekend :) This was also the first time I praised the Lord for providing meat for me and my family. That note was always missing in past trips.

soli deo gloria (even in the simple things like hunting!),

R.D. Thompson

Humorous: How To Win A Debate

• Argue about the meaning of words, conjunctions, prepositions, and so on in minute detail (This is sometimes necessary in good debate but usually just turns into sophism.)
• Shout
• Bang the table
• Tell the audience, "Clearly, obviously, without a doubt, plainly the other team is wrong."
• Appeal to the audience's intelligence. Like, "While correct in many things the other team is intellectually short-sighted in blah, blah, blah..." This convinces the audience to take your side because who wants to be intellectually short-sighted?
• Appeal to the original languages (this is useful only if A] you have a debate about the Bible and B] your opponents don't KNOW the original languages.)
• Never, EVER, ask your opponents or the audience an open ended question unless you know they will blunder. It just lets them talk more than you. That's bad when you're on a schedule. You should be doing all the talking.
• ALWAYS jump on open ended questions that the opposing teams ask you and try to give as long an answer as possible. This means you're talking more and they're talking less.
• Use obscene amounts of Scripture without referencing the context or even reading the verses.
• Use a sandbag argument that doesn't really matter and appeals to the emotions that way when your opponents waste 10 minutes talking about your sandbag argument they use up all their time on useless arguments, not your real argument.
  
• Claim that you won the debate in the final rebuttal (this is why having final rebuttal pays off for me almost every time.) If you leave them with the words, "Because the other team has failed to address point A and point B of in our arguments they have proved their view incoherent and have failed to convincingly win this debate. On the other hand, our position blah, blah, blah..." This is helpful because it also appeals to intelligence.
• Do none of these so that the audience can recognize that you are doing them, otherwise they'll see the through the ruse and sympathize with the other team. MODERATION! KNOW WHEN TO BACK OFF AND WHEN TO GO FOR THE THROAT!
• Never, EVER try to argue like this with your wife.

These are how you win debates when you're assigned to argue a side you don't agree with. Being intimately acquainted with both sides is a must, but rhetoric always helps! Don't ever argue like this for something you believe in, people WILL see the ruse.

Too bad so many of us argue like this all the time for stuff that really matters,

R.D. Thompson

A Day At Swiss Valley

Review Over at Puritanical

Hey friends, I have a book review on Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will up over at Puritanical, the review outlet of Graeme Pitman and myself.

Check it out here or at the link above.

Also, if you are a decent writer, please tell me and I will ask you to do a review of a theological book. We need writers who are actually interested in reading and then writing about what they are reading! Duh!

Lovin' books with you all,

R.D. Thompson

Aug/Sep Photos

A Humorous Old Testament Write-Up

Every week at Emmaus, the school which attend, in my Old Testament Survey class, we're required to turn in a written report on a question pertaining to the text we read that week. My beloved professor posed this question:

" Write a personal response to Psalm 15 as it gives instruction for your life as a student at Emmaus."

I, being the unfortunate Puritan influenced smart aleck that I am, responded as follows:

"How indeed shall I remain steadfast and ere immovable at this the swan song of my Emmaus sojournings? Further still, how ought I indeed to dwell in the tabernacle of the Lord? How indeed shall I ever rest in His holy mountayne? Or, to put it simply, how shall I thus enter heaven? Psalm 15 answers these basic inquiries with a most sure and certain response. As I have long tarried ere on the Emmaus properties I have surely found a most troubling thing: when I act in the secret counsels of life in a way aberrant to the holy Scriptures (and the holy handbook) my bed is oft drowned in tears for the pains which I do indeed suffer at mine own hands. For this reason doth David exclaim that, “he that walketh uprightly,” shall be the man who doest enter into the Lord’s holy Tabernacle. I shouldst likewise infer, he that walketh uprightly with the Holy Scriptures as they pertain to the holy handbook firm in his mind shall be a happy man. He that doeth all in accordance with the Law of Glock in his secret counsels, and worketh towards holiness in working righteousness while attending this beloved institution, and alway sayeth the truth of God to himself in his dailie doings shall be a happy Emmaus student, or so thus I have found in my various experiments and thus I believe shall carry me onwards to the end of, not only my Emmaus sojournings, but to the end of all life and breath. But David dost not only address the outward positive workings of righteousness but also the outward ceasing of sin. Indeed, while tarrying at Emmaus I have found that those who, “slandereth with the tongue,” behind the backs of their acquaintances oft come to a nasty end. This simply shall not do for a devout saint of Christ or Emmaus attendee. To graduate, or truly to enter heaven, one must not, “doeth evil to his neigbour,” for indeed this shall thus prove us finally vain and outside of the Tabernacle and holy mountayne. Finally, David doth give the most wise counsel to wisely endeavor in choosing those who shall be with you al the days of his (Emmaus) life. We shall not, sayeth David, commend that most evil and profane man who walkest not in the counsels of the Almighty. Rather, sayeth he, we shall giveth our honour, affection, and acquaintance unto the godly who “feareth the Lord.” One must not, likewise, squander one’s finances upon that evil gayne of gambling and trifling with the wanton pleasure of robbing his fellow man from a bet. Not only is this contrary to the Law of the Lord but it is a most vile abomination of the Law of Glock and, shouldst one deign to invest in such an unwise endeavor, he shall thus rightly find himself before that most feared committee of student judicial affaires.

Thus shall the student of Emmaus dwell and prosper."

My wife's exact quote was,

"Wow, it's sure a good thing that he knows you!"

"Wow" is right...

Enjoying the serious moments and the humorous ones with you brethren,

soli deo gloria

R.D. Thompson

Calvin on Satan

I sure do love Calvin's Institutes and they have been a balm to my soul and a sweet pleasure which I have been delightedly getting college credit for! How awful is that?

I love to share what I read, it is probably my number one "ministry," primarily for the fact that I am in no way original in my theology and could certainly not articulate these things as well as my predecessors or as well as our fathers.

So, like a hungry man leading another man to bread, let me share with you Calvin's Scripture saturated view of God, Satan, and the believer's assurance of victory:

"Satan is clearly under God's power, and is so ruled by his bidding as to be compelled to render him service . Indeed, when we say that Satan resists God, and that Satan's works disagree with God's works, we at the same time assert that this resistance and this opposition are dependent upon God's sufferance. I am not now speaking of Satan's will, nor even of his effort, but only of his effect. For inasmuch as the devil is by nature wicked, he is not at all inclined to obedience to the divine will, but utterly intent upon contumacy [a stubborn refusal to obey authority] and rebellion."

Further,

"But because with the bridle of his power God holds him bound and restrained, he carries out only those things which have been divinely permitted to him; and so he obeys his Creator, whether he will or not, because he is compelled to yield him service wherever God impels him."

So what good does this to the Christian?

"As far as believers are concerned, because they are disquieted by enemies of this sort, they heed these exhortations: 'Give no place to the devil' (Eph. 4:27). 'The devil your enemy goes about as a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour; resist him, be firm in your faith' (I Peter 5:8-9), and the like. Paul admits that he was not a free man from this sort of strife when he writes that, as a remedy to tame his pride, he was given an angel of Satan to humble him (II Cor. 12:7). Therefore, this exercise is common to all the children of God."

And here is where it gets sweet and becomes laced with joy,

"But because that promise to crush Satan's head (Gen 3:15) pertains to Christ and all his memebers in common, I deny that believers can ever be conquered or overwhelmed by him. Often, indeed, are they distressed, but not so deprived of life as not to recover; they fall under violent blows, but afterward they are raised up; they are wounded, but not fatally; in short, they so toil throughout life that at last they obtain the victory."

It is as my friend (through his books, not in person) John Piper says,

"Satan can rough us up but cannot damn us. I do not take lightly the threats, but they are not ultimate. They are limited. You can always say, Jesus is superior in strength and he died so that no accusation can hold against his people. The great accuser, liar, murderer has been exposed. He has been defanged. He can hurt us by gumming us, but his poison is gone. We cannot die. We cannot lose the battle that God fights for us with the death and resurrection of his Son. All authority in heaven and on earth belongs to Jesus. Lay hold on him. Speak his sovereign name. Trust his power and mercy and blood and righteousness implicitly."

This is one of those startling, astounding, and beautiful truths of the gospel. Satan has a whole lot of power to beat on us, to hurt us, to maim us, and to just bully us around in general, but he cannot win.

Jesus won and now I'm ultimately safe and free from Satan in Him.

Hallelujah,

R.D. Thompson

Calvin on Providence

Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a gold mine that I think we belittle and ignore too much. Just listen to Calvin on Providence,

"Yet, when that light of divine providence has once shone upon a godly man, he is then relieved and set free not only from the extreme anxiety and fear that were pressing him before, but from every care. For as he justly dreads fortune, so he fearlessly dares commit himself to God. His solace, I say, is to know that his Heavenly Father so holds all things in his power, so rules by his authority and will, so governs by his wisdom, that nothing can befall except he determine it. Moreover, it comforts him to know that he has been received into God's safekeeping and entrusted to the care of his angels, and that neither water, nor fire, nor iron can harm him, except in so far as it pleases God as governor to give them occasion."

People bash the doctrine of the sovereignty of God but I say that sovereignty is an eminently practical and wonderful doctrine to rest in because it means that ultimately God is genuinely in control. No Open Theist or Arminian (not equating those two don't worry) has this comfort so deeply or so joyously.

Loving Our Wonderful God With You,

R.D. Thompson

Who Hardens Whom?

There is a major debate over whether or not Pharaoh hardened himself or whether God hardened him. I think if you just read the Bible plainly it seems pretty obvious,

Exodus 3:19-20, "But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion. So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all of my miracles which I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will let you go."

4:21, "The Lord said to Moses, 'When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let you go."

6:1, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and under compulsion he will drive them out his land.'"

7:3-5, "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My hosts, My people the sons Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments. The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst."

7: 13, "Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

7:22, "[A]nd Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

8:15, "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

8:19, "But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

8:32, "But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and he did not let the people go."

9:7, "Pharaoh sent, and behold, there was not even one of the livestock of Israel dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go."

9:12, "And the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses."

9:16, "But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you my power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth."

9:34 - 10:1, "But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the Lord had spoken through Moses. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of mine among them."

10:20, "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go."

10:27, "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go."

11:9-10, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Pharaoh will not listen to you, so that My wonders will be multiplied in the land of Egypt.' Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; yet the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the son's of Israel go out of his land."

14:4-5, "Thus I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.' And they did so. When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart toward the people, and they said, 'What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us?'"

14:8, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he chased after the sons of Israel as the sons of Israel were going out boldly."

14:17-18, "But as for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. The the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord, when I am honored through Pharaoh, through his chariots and his horsemen."

From the get-go, from 3:19, 4:21, 6:1, and 7:3-5, God made it plain that He was the one doing the hardening and that He would be the one making Pharaoh do stuff under compulsion. There really is no way around it, every phrase that says that Pharaoh "hardened his heart," is governed by the opening of the book. God told Moses he would harden Pharaoh's heart and that Pharaoh would let them leave only under compulsion before Moses ever left Midian.

Indeed, 9:34 - 10:1 is of greatest importance in understanding this. Who hardened whom? While it says that Pharaoh and his servants hardened their own hearts, it promptly responds, "Just as the Lord had spoken through Moses!" When did the Lord speak through Moses? Oh that's right, back in 3:19, 4:21, 6:1, and 7:3-5. Not only this but then the Lord claims responsibility for the same hardening that Moses attributes to Pharaoh only a verse earlier! For what purpose? "That I may perform My signs among them."

From first to last, the sovereign hand of God is wielded for one purpose and one purpose only, the glory of God. God hardened Pharaoh so that the nation of Israel and the nation of Egypt would not be in doubt as to who God was and is and so that those respective nations would throw themselves prostrate before Him in awe and worship.

Thus, the sovereignty of God in hardening Pharaoh's heart is eminently practical because it brings to a deep heart knowledge of God's greatness and His majesty and our smallness and depravity. It shows how little we can control anything and how little and weak and non-existent our so-called "will" is.

According to Exodus, this should lead to only one thing: Worship and adoration of the Almighty.

Indeed when all was said and done, Moses could only say in Exodus 15:11-13, "Who is like you among the gods, O Lord? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, awesome in praises, working wonders? You stretched out your right hand, the earth swallowed them. In your lovingkindness you have led the people whom you have redeemed; in your strength you have guided them to your holy habitation."

Therefore, the purpose of the sovereign working of God in both believers and unbelievers, in working salvation and in damning to hell, in hardening and in softening hearts to believe and to work, in keeping all of Israel's livestock and in killing all of Egypt's livestock, in killing all the Egyptian firstborn and keeping all the Israelite firstborn, in leading Israel through the Red Sea safely and in destroying Pharaoh and his army completely in the Red Sea, indeed, in controlling both good and evil causes, is to the magnification of His majesty and the glorification of His greatness.

If our response be anything but worship it is a wrong response. The sovereignty of God in the power to harden and soften hearts is a terrifyingly majestic truth and it demands that we bow low to the King of the universe.

Would you do this? May I plead with you to bow to the almighty, soverign, ordaining, hardening, softening, merciful, wrathful, loving, prescient, ominpotent God of the universe rather than rebelling and saying such an untruth as, "God permitted Pharaoh to harden his heart." This is unbiblical and, dare I say, contrary to the whole point of Exodus 1-15.

God hardened Pharaoh so that you and I would worship. So let me plead with you, please worship this all-controlling and wonderful God!

Soli Deo Gloria

R.D. Thompson

Have We Come Full Circle?

There was once a day, a couple thousand years ago, when pragmatic relativism reigned. In the Roman Empire in the early days of Christianity it could have been said, though it may not have been coined quite the same way, "What's good for me is good for me and what's good for you is good for you."

Let us examine a brief testimony to this. In the early years of what would eventually become known as Christianity, many gods were worshiped by the Romans and many religions were allowed in the empire. There was indeed a god for everything. What is interesting is that you could have believed in any of these gods and worshiped in any form you desired and in fact held to any strange religion so long as you kept the peace, sacrificed to the local deities, and paid due respect the deity of the emperor. So long as you kept social peace and bothered no one you were an accepted part of society. You could have worshiped any god you pleased and practiced any religion you desired just as long as you kept to yourself about it and allowed society to run. This is why the Christians were persecuted on the odd charge of "atheism": because they refused to worship any but the one true and living God. In the Roman's minds they did not have enough gods. Indeed, for them to enter the cultural milieu of the Roman Empire and announce that there was indeed only one truth and that there was indeed only one way was a direct affront to the lackadaisical idea that one could worship whatever god one might choose so long as he worshiped the local deities and kept social peace.

Is this not the same position in which we find ourselves? Have we not in fact come in a full circle back to this point? Have the philosophers really come to a new form of thinking in postmodernism?

From 313 A.D. forward the one true and living God was simply the assumed normative for thought. This came about, not only through Constantine's Edict of Milan but also through the strenuous and tireless efforts of men who were Christians who fought the cultural milieu and fought to establish a Christian culture instead. Men like the early apologists and later fathers. These men spoke into the vacuum of Roman society that there was a real tangible reality to be found in the gospel and that this reality defined all of life. These men worked so hard that eventually one day Rome became a Christian empire whether for the better or for the worse.

Is this not what we find ourselves moving towards? While all truth has truly in a sense been lost to the modernists who killed us and who killed all rational thinking which led to postmodernism it would seem to me that we have come full circle. Where there was little need for a whole generation of apologists from 313 A.D. to the Renaissance there has been a surge of great apologists speaking to a defunct and decadent society in which one may worship any god he so desires so long as he pays tribute to the gods of politics and does not disturb the social peace. This sounds terribly repetitive. Have we not trod this ground before?

My suggestion is that, just like the apologists of old and the fathers after them, we stick to our guns and stand for the absolute tangible reality of the biblical gospel and the absolute tangible reality that God is reality. The apologists made their arguments from all they had: the Bible. They were reasonable arguments, they were cogent arguments, and they were spoken into a confused and lost generation in which "the only heresy was to say that there was heresy."

We should not be surprised at the state of thought in today's world and we must not, indeed we dare not conform to it. It is as Solomon once said, "There is nothing new under the sun." The postmodern conception of truth, if indeed it can be called that, is nothing fresh. It is nothing fresh for the only "truth" to be that there is no truth. It is nothing fresh to exclaim, as did Pilate in his air of scepticism, "What is truth?"

For these statements to be uttered once more and these thoughts to be thought once more has rocked four generations of Christians back on their heels in confused surprise. Ignorant of the fact that this is nothing new there has been much condemnation and hiding inside of our calm little sects in Evangelicalism, primarily out of fear if I am correct, and this is a great sin. There has likewise been an extreme conformity to this "new" conception of truth and it is likewise just as dangerous a sin. We must, as the apostles, as the apologists, and as the fathers, speak of the absolute tangible reality of the gospel of Jesus Christ. To Pilate Jesus simply said, "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth." To which Pilate asked, "What is truth?"

Truth is put into one simple verse by Christ Himself, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me." Christ himself is the truth. His birth, life, death, resurrection, current reign, and eventual theocracy are truth. His revealing of the almighty powerful and sovereign God is truth. His revealing the sin of man in a clear light is truth. His solution for that sin, the cross, is truth.

Have we not come full circle? In a world desperate for truth, though they may not look it, and as in the Roman Empire, we must do as the men of old and stand on the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ as inerrantly inspired in the Bible.

Let us do no other.

A lui sia la gloria in eterno,

R.D. Thompson

The Return

After many months away from this blog I have at last decided to return. For any who have been here before you may have noticed that I "slightly" tweaked my blog to be a bit more...attractive.

I have little to blog about right now but there shall certainly be more soon.

My sermons are now available on the right sidebar for download or just for streaming. I recommend downloading them.

A lui sia la gloria in eterno,

R.D. Thompson

Are The Emmaus Faculty Calvinist?

Over at Puritanical recently I received a question (in the comments section of a post) that I think it would be good for me to address. A certain Central Bible Chapel asked, "Do you see the faculty and leadership as a whole at Emmaus leaning towards calvinism and reformed theology?"

I answer below.

Central,

I understand your concern in asking this question. I cannot tell whether you are asking it hostile-like or just as a question so I will answer it just as a question.

I am well aware that this is a topic (unfortunately) of hot debate among the "Peculiar People". Before I came to Emmaus I was warned by some well meaning friends, "Don't go to Emmaus they'll just make you Calvinist!" This was always said with a grimace and gasps. I therefore came to Emmaus terrified that I would be indoctrinated into this awful system of Calvinism.

I tell my friends now that Emmaus had zero impact on my becoming Reformed in my Soteriolgy and I mean zero.

I think it is best to let our president speak for himself. President Kenneth Alan Daughters has recently said this, "Our teaching is moderate, falling in the spectrum between consistent Calvinism and Arminianism. Our faculty is not loyal to either doctrinal system. We seek to be biblical in our explanation of relevant texts, balancing all that God's Word says on the subject. We do not indoctrinate our students in a negative manner. We teach them to think critically, and equip them with the tools to exegete the biblical passages themselves. Our professors teach from their own perspectives and are respectful of the views of our students as we seek to understand the Scripture together. As a faculty we represent the range of beliefs found in North American assemblies."

I think it is good to be forthright: Emmaus has professors that lean Calvinist. BUT Emmaus also has professors that lean Arminian! Neither side predominates and neither side makes demands or fights with the other side. In fact, I almost speak as if we have a divided faculty and like this is an issue. I have been here 6 years and I would honestly say that among the spectrum of our faculty this is a non-issue!

I heard a girl at one of our DEW weekends say that she couldn't come to Emmaus because someone told her that the profs teach only hardcore Predestination here. I laughed aloud when I heard that. Sure we talk about Predestination and some teachers more than others, but even in classes the professors disagree with each other and the students debate it (though I can only remember 2 instances where the topic actually came up).

No, Emmaus faculty and leadership as a whole does not lean towards Calvinism. And to say that they did as a whole would be laughable. It would be like looking at Notre Dame and saying that because George Marsden and Mark Noll teach there Notre Dame must be a Protestant Presbyterian Reformed grad school. Which we all know isn't true since Notre Dame is a Catholic/Secular school and loudly professes to be so on their website.

So you may ask, how did I become Reformed? I had a friend who came to Emmaus a lover of John Piper and he introduced me to Piper. I have read and listened to Piper (and therefore Jonathan Edwards, Augustine of Hippo, John Owen, Francis Schaeffer and many many more) for years now and am convinced that the Reformed view of Soteriology is Biblical. I personally would love to see our assemblies embrace a passionate and graceful Calvinism (not the Dave Hunt kind, which is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism) and would especially like to see our youth embrace a Reformed Soteriology. My professors may speak for themselves on this issue, some would agree, some would disagree, a great example of the spectrum of beliefs at Emmaus.

I'll tell what Emmaus did make me was a passionate Dispensational Pre-millennial and a passionate Biblicist! THOSE things are definitely weaved into every class at Emmaus.

soli deo gloria

RDT

Why Oh Why Does Ryan Always Wear Black?

For some reason people don't like it when I wear black, which I do often. They all need a reason for why I dress up and carry a generally somber appearance. Besides the simple answer that I do it because I respect the good doctors and authorities that are around me and the standard among them is to dress snappy and appropriately for a professional culture, may I add that there is little reason to dress and act like everything is great when hundreds and thousands of babies are mutilated at the whim of a mother's "freedom of choice". One day, when I'm heaven, I'll be happy to wear neon pink or happy green and lavender if thats what suits the purpose and the praise, but for now, lets realize that there is a somber world we live in and that while we take great joy in the realization that Jesus Christ is Lord, King, Substitute, and therefore Savior, that God is the Almighty Benevolent and Electing Sovereign of the universe, and that we have the incredible "hope of glory" in Christ Jesus, life is a somber ordeal. We are still weighed down with sin, we are still in our earthly bodies, we are not yet in heaven, we see hundreds of thousands of precious, sweet, little human lives taken in the name of our "freedoms".

What good is it to walk around like everything is wonderful when there is cause for groaning? Yes of course, I know there is also great cause for joy if you noted the above words. I think Johnny Cash would suit this situation beautifully,

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.

I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.

Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.

I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.

And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.

Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.

Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black

Let us not be too foppish and cavalier about the gravity of the situation that surrounds us.

soli deo gloria

R.D. Thompson

The 10 Books That Changed How I View My God, Myself, and My Hope

Over the next few weeks I will be saying a thing or two on these books and why they have been the most affective books in my aged 22 years.

This is the order in which I read them (or read in them),

1. Jonathan Edwards on Knowing Christ
2. God is the Gospel - John Piper
3. Hebrews: The Epistle of Warning - John Owen
4. Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography - Iain Murray
5. Brothers We Are Not Professionals - John Piper
6. God Transcendent - J. Gresham Machen
7. Evangelicalism Divided - Iain Murray
8. Trilogy - Francis Schaeffer
9. Understanding End Times Prophecy - Paul N. Benware
10. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - Eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem

Obviously, I'm only 22 so this list will change over the next lifetime...praise the Lord!

Open Theism: A Response To A Comment

Well...I had hoped I would never have to deal with an internet controversy again, but it appears that I have to.

I recently commented on a friend's blog concerning "Free Will vs. Determinism. I can't say that I was overly impressed with what Kevin said (not that it was bad but seriously, a paragraph and a poem simply won't do just to try and make peace in a 1900 year old debate) but it was his friend, Evan, whom I both agreed with and objected to.

It is to Evan that this response must go. It seems that Evan is possibly (no pun intended) an Open Theist. I do not know this for sure but he sure hits a keyword of Open theology and demands an answer. Says Evan,

"And enters the Hellenistic thought with an appeal to consequences. So, just reiterate, there is no verse that definitively and specifically says that God knows all our decisions prior to our decision making process. And there are passages that suggest that God hasn't known what people's decisions would be. In light of this, where are the verses that you believe define meticulous control specifically of all people's decisions?"

There are some incredibly touchy keywords here. Attacking me for "Hellenistic thought" (a common concern for Open proponents), God knowing decisions "prior" to their occurring (again, the future is open in Open theology), and especially the term "meticulous control" hint to me that maybe Evan has been reading some Greg Boyd or John Sanders, or perhaps he has recently acquired some William Hasker or David Basinger. Or maybe his pastor is an Open Theist. I know not. But I do think that Evan's question deserves a winsome (and theological!) answer. It will not do to hide away with my tail between my legs after being called a Hellenist thinking in terms of meticulous control. Otherwise known as a Calvinist in some circles (especially the Open Theist circles).

First, I am a Calvinist, lets just be plain with it, and I do not apologize for being a Calvinist. I see there being an incredibly strong theme of God having meticulous control of future decisions, knowing them both possibly and definitely. That is, the future is not open to any millions of possibilities any one of which a human may choose without God seeing (much less ordaining) prior to its occurrence. That is, I believe the Bible resoundingly proclaims that God knows the future and ordains definitely what happens in it.

Second, I understand the ache of the Open Theist to know a loving God and realize without a shadow of a doubt that many Calvinists have been cold and brutal, or just plain cowardly, in their holding to Calvinist principles. I am attempting not to fulfill this stereotype and respond in love. I apologize in advance if any part of my response fails to be winsome and loving. This does not mean that I will not unflinchingly proclaim the truth of the Bible.

Thus, let me proceed.

Evan begins by accusing me of holding Hellenistic thought with appeal to consequences. I originally said,

Though I disagree that the Bible doesn't say God doesn't [know] all of men's choices, He must if He is to remain the God of order and not the God of chance.

I believe that this is what Evan responded to. To begin with, appealing to consequences has little to do with Hellenistic thought. And holding an immutable God who does not change has little to do with Hellenistic thought (I anticipate this one, Evan did not actually object to this, but if he called me a Hellenist for consequences he would call me a Hellenist for this to). In fact, simply throwing it out there that I am being Hellenistic is little more than a disguised ad hominem. It is very popular nowadays to just accuse anyone thinking in a "Western" linear fashion that they are so influenced by the Greeks that their theology has been compromised. It is almost to be accompanied by a gasp from whoever hears and meant to send those arguing in such a fashion packing with a blush and apologies. No friend, I have not been influenced by the Greeks in this way, I have been influenced by a much older line of thinking which has passed down through the ages: Judaism. Indeed, the Jews have held that God must be the God of order and not chance from their founding as God's people. The rabbis have long held to what I am accused of stealing from Philo. Moses knew it on the mountain, Job knew it in the whirlwind, and Jeremiah knew it in the broken city. The rabbis have long held it and continue to hold it. Having addressed this accusation (albeit briefly), almost reductionisticly), we must see that this is not the main issue at all. It actually borders of a sarcastic jab. But, I must admit that a portion of my comment to which Evan responded was foolish and a sarcastic jab so maybe I deserved it. It is a small thing. Let us proceed to the real issue.

What Evan objects to is that I have said I believe the Bible says that God knows and controls defintively and meticulously what all of men's future decisions will be. For this, he says, there is no verse. In fact he appeals to the verses which say God does not know man's choices beforehand (probably Jonah 3:10, Isaiah 38:1, 2 Kings 20:1, 5-6, Exodus 32:14, and Genesis 6:5-6, 22:12 et al). I believe that these verses must be explained but I do not have time or space to attempt to explain every facet of those verses. There are many arguments to come at them and say that in fact they have nothing to do with God's omniscience (like for instance, those verses aren't even talking about or teaching anything about omniscience, that isn't even the subject of the story of Abraham, or Jonah, or Hezekiah). In fact that is not what has been asked if me. I am to give verses that say God has meticulous control and knows our future decisions definitely.

So here it goes. If one looks at the spectrum of Scripture there are many verses that imply this kind of control. Shall we mention them all? I do not think so. I shall try not to use these verses out of context, or just as proof texts, but I think they are pretty important in this debate.

How about Psalm 139:1-4?

1LORD, You have searched me and known me.
2You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
3You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
4Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O LORD, You know it all.

Or perhaps Ephesians 1:3-5, to which there are many parallells in the New Testament (33 or so in fact),

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love

5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

Maybe we could go back to Isaiah and look there. Isaiah, in condemening the Israelites and their whoring with idols dares them to prove that the idols know and control the future as he does,

41:23 - Declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. [i.e. if the idols can declare the things that are going to come afterward, than they are indeed gods. This they cannot do, thus...?]

41:45-26 - 25"I have aroused one from the north, and he has come;
From the rising of the sun he will call on My name;
And he will come upon rulers as upon mortar,
Even as the potter treads clay."
26Who has declared this from the beginning, that we might know?
Or from former times, that we may say, "He is right!"?
Surely there was no one who declared,
Surely there was no one who proclaimed,
Surely there was no one who heard your words.

[i.e. God did, the idols didn't, they could not do so, they are not God who both knows and declares from the beginning!]

42:8-9 -
8" I am the LORD, that is My name;
I will not give My glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images.
9"Behold, the former things have come to pass,
Now I declare new things;
Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you."

46:8-11 - 8"Remember this, and be assured;
Recall it to mind, you transgressors.
9"Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
11Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it.

Shall we go on? Shall we mention Romans 8-9? Or 1st Peter 1:18-20? Or every verse in Isaiah 40-48? Or Matthew 16:21? Or Acts 2:31? Or Jesus own words in John 13:19,

"From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He.

Indeed, the Bible is full of the language of Meticulous Sovereignty! It is packed with the all knowing God knowing the future definitely. It is packed with the glorious Almighty (LOVING!) God meticulously knowing and controlling all things.

If we are to read these texts honestly and in a "plain vanilla" hermeneutic, we must come to one and only one conclusion: The classical definition of omiscience is the Biblical definition of omniscience!

soli deo gloria,

R.D. Thompson