Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for May, 2006

Congratulations Curt


Curt Schilling picked up his 200th career win tonight at Fenway Park as the Sox beat the Devil Rays.  Being in central Florida, the guys calling the game are whining about a few calls.  It was not Curt's best performance, but the bats, minus Manny, provided enough punch to get the 3rd of 4 against Tampa Bay.

Once again, Mr. Automatic, Jonathan Papelbon, picked up the save.  He has a MLB Rookie record of 18 straight.  Now all we need is some more starting pitching, especially after Wells took a line drive off his knee last night.

Read Full Post »


The mothers of NBA stars LeBron James and Amare Stoudemire have both gotten themselves into trouble.  King James' mom hit an unmarked police car with her SUV and kicked the window out of a patrol car.  Despite the furs LeBron buys mom, she's evidently one tough woman.  She pleaded no contest to speeding, reckless driving, disorderly conduct and a lesser version of DUI.  The penalty: 3 days in jail, completion of a drug/alcohol class, suspended license until 1/20 (whoa!), $400 in fines, $150 in damages and 100 hours of community service.  Apparently they must have confused her with her son, an athlete, with this light sentence.

Amare's mom was sentenced to 3 years in prison after driving into an interstate barricade under the influence.

Read Full Post »


At the office we recently went to High Speed internet.  But I don't want to surf at the office too much.  Weary of waiting for Verizon to get DSL service out to the house, we got Road Runner, and it is wireless.

Now I am able to enter a brave new world.  With dial-up I didn't want to waste loads of time downloading MP3s of sermons.  Now, I'm ready beginning to stream shows and download sermons.

I'm a beginner, so feel free to leave other good sites to download sermons.  Here's what I've got so far.

The White Horse Inn archives.

Desiring God Radio

Preaching the Bible: John Piper

Mark Driscoll- Mars Hill  (hit downloads on the menu)

Tim Keller

HT to the Jollyblogger for Driscoll & Keller links

Read Full Post »


I caught part of the show this morning and wondered "the lengths people go to in order to explain what happened because they ruled out the supernatural intervention of God."  Here's some of what the 'scholars' said:

1. The word 'laborers', not 'slaves', was used to describe the Israelites.

2. They were obviously great soldiers to defeat Pharaoh's army.  This spun into the theory that they were actually mercenaries, not shepherds, before conscripted into labor.  They also left Egypt in military formation.

3. The battle at the Red Sea was a result of Moses' superior military strategy (not God's mighty power).

4. Pharaoh was upset that they plundered his people, possibly killing many, and that is why he chased them.

The scholars used texts selectively, and didn't take other texts into account.  A few responses.

1. They were not slaves as we think of them.  They were not purchased, or even conquered.  But they were conscripted laborers, proven by the fact they couldn't just leave.  The 'state' owned them.

2. Moses was trained, as Pharaoh's grandson, in military strategy- hence the military formation when they departed Egypt.  But the army was not really formed until they spent 2 years at Sinai.  If you call Moses brilliant for the Red Sea, where did his brilliance go as they went in circles in the wilderness for 40 years?

3. The text says that Pharaoh did not want to lose his work force, not that he wanted revenge for the plundering.

So, it can be an interesting show, but they depend on scholars who seem to be very critical of the texts and rule out the reality it portrays focusing solely on the human element.

Read Full Post »


In the Issues, Etc. interview he repeatedly says that ‘the righteousness of God’ from Romans refers to God’s own righteousness.  This is exactly what terrified Luther from Romans 1:17 before his Tower Discovery.  Sounds like Wright is actually unraveling the Reformation, despite his protests to the contrary.  He claims Paul is not arguing against works righteousness, but the exclusivity of salvation for Israel.  He claims that our understanding of Paul is inadequate.  Imputation, in his view, obscures what the ‘righteousness of God’ means.

In Rom 3:28.  The works of the Law refers to the way of life for God’s people, not the works for salvation.  These demonstrate we are in the covenant family.  We are no longer marked out by food laws, etc, but faith for Gentiles (which sounds remarkably like Neo-nomianism- which is that faith is our righteousness, not that Christ’s is imputed to those who believe).  But Rom. 9-11 talks about the Jews being cut off due to unbelief, and grafted back in if they believe.

In Galatians, he says the ‘other gospel’ is a gospel that divides the people of God between Jew and Gentile (like dispensationalism).  But why would such a view result in utter condemnation?  It does not make sense to me.  Are we to then argue that dispensationalists are condemned?  I can find no biblical basis for that!

Kim Riddlebarger in the follow-up, rightly I think, thinks that Wright has drunk too much of the critical scholars, particularly Stendahl (I hope I got that right) in which Luther projected his own struggles on the Scripture.

I know this all makes sense to N.T., but either I am a total dolt, or lack the indwelling Spirit, because I don’t see any of this.  I stand with Luther and Calvin’s understanding of Romans and Galatians, and therefore justification/righteousness.  Of course, I was trying to cook dinner for the family.

Read Full Post »


I came across a site that features interviews and discussions on theology and practice.  For instance, they will be discussing the New Perspectives w/N.T. Wright Thurs. 5 pm eastern.  They have archives which you can play too.  Mostly, but not exclusively, Lutheran from the looks of it.

Read Full Post »


Glenn Beck had Dr. Richard Lindzen on his show tonight.  Dr. Lindzen is a professor of meteorology and atmospheric and planetary sciences.  Teaching at MIT, one would think he would be a respected voice on the matter of global warming.  Guess again! He worked on the IPCC- a lead author by the way.  Yet, he disputes the Summary for Policymakers which was not put together by scientists.  It was literally Shanghai-ed.  It has been politicized and used by the fear mongers as their latest pet project to get people up in arms. In his interview he stated (best as I can remember) “In 1998 Newsweek was claiming scientists were all in agreement.  Agreed on what?  That the overall temperature had increased slightly, yes.  That Antartica was going to melt?  No.” He likens belief in Global Warming to religious belief.

“With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree]. But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science- consensus is foreign.”

That’s enough on global warming for awhile.

Update: Climate Scientist Roy Spencer has questions for Al Gore about his movie. Other scientists not part of the ‘consensus’ include: Dr. Timothy Ball, Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr., Dr. Robert E. Davis, Dr. David LeGates, and I could go on.  Apparently these gentlemen are too difficult to find.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »