Piper and Wright on “Future Grace”

One of the greatest truths I have learned from Piper is that saving faith is one that looks to and rest on God’s promises in Christ for salvation, both in the past, present and future.

Piper writes:

“A second assumption is that justifying faith is not only a trusting in the past grace of God, but also a trusting in the future grace of God, secured by the past grace of Christ’s death and resurrection. Justifying faith embraces the finished work of Christ’s atonement, in sense that it rests in all that this atonement means for our past, present and future.” [1]

Also to my amazement, Wright articulates something similar to Piper:

“Romans 8 thus points to the crowning glory of Paul's doctrine of justification. It demonstrates that the assurance which is contained in the doctrine is found not in looking at anything in oneself, not even at one's faith, but in faith itself, which is looking to Christ” [2]

“The doctrine of justification by faith is that all this is even now certain for those who believe in the Gospel; the experience of justification by faith is the steadfast looking away from oneself at the objective facts of incarnation and atonement, revealing as they do the unchanging and unshakeable love of God for his people. This is justification: because of the work of the Son and the Spirit, God pronounces in the present the future verdict of 'righteous' over all who believe. Irrespective of moral or racial background, believers are declared to belong for all eternity to the true people of Abraham, the family of the renewed covenant, the people whose sins are forgiven.” [2]

“The 'faith' in question is faith in 'the God who raised Jesus from the dead'. It comes about through the announcement of God's word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, 'calling' them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to 'obey' the gospel (Rom. 1.16f.; 1 Thess. 1.3f., 2.13; 2 Thess. 1.8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ, by means of his own obedient faithfulness to God's purpose (Rom. 5.19; Phil. 2.6), relying on that rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law-observance ('the works of the law') as the decisive factor (Phil. 3.2-11). And it looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6).” [3]

[1] John Piper, “Future Grace”, pg. 27

[2] N.T. Wright, “Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism”

[3] N.T. Wright, “The Shape of Justification”

Piper and Wright

In Piper's lastest "Fresh Word", he has written some tough comments about Wright's view of justification.

He writes:

"The other book is a response to N. T. Wright on the doctrine of justification. I have no immediate plan to publish it until I get the feedback from critical readers. My motivation in writing it is that I think his understanding of Paul is wrong and his view of justification is harmful to the church and to the human soul. Few things are more precious than the truth of justification by faith alone because of Christ alone. As a shepherd of a flock of God’s blood-bought church, I feel responsible to lead the sheep to life-giving pastures. That is not what the sheep find in Wright’s view of Paul on justification. He is an eloquent and influential writer and is, I believe, misleading many people on the doctrine of justification. I will keep you posted on what becomes of this manuscript." [1]

[HT] Justin Taylor's blog

[1] http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2006/080206.html

"The Doer of the Law Who Will be Justified": Romans 2:13

13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. - Romans 2:13


Hypothetical Statement?

In the Reformed tradition, verse 13 has been described as a "hypothetical statement", stating that people can be justified by doing the law or having good works if they could only obey the law perfectly, but since no one can, the only option is to be justified by faith.

Evidence of Being in Christ

Rather than verse 13 being a "hypothetical statement", I believe this verse is describing a true Christian, who by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit will be a "doer of the law" or someone who will produce good works. It's important to note that I am not saying that works will merit or earn justification, but it will be the evidences of our union with Christ.

Piper and Wright Quotes:


John Piper states:

"I think that when Paul says, "doers of the law will be justified," he means that there really are such people, and they are the only people who will be acquitted at the judgment. This is not a hypothetical statement. It is a statement of actual, experienced fact. When Christ comes into a person's life by the power of the Holy Spirit through faith in the Gospel, that person becomes a "doer of the law." Not a sinlessly perfect law-keeper, but one who loves the law of God (= the law of Christ), and depends on God's help to live according to the truth (which now includes the cross of Christ and the work of the Spirit), and trusts God for his mercy when he stumbles (according to 1 John 1:9)." [1]

"Romans 2:13b says, "Doers of the Law will be justified." It does not say, "By doing works of the Law you will be justified." It simply says that the ones who will be justified are also those who are doers of the law. There is no causal connection asserted. So the verse is not a contradiction of Romans 3:20 which says, "By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified." There is nothing in Romans 2:13b that keeps us from believing in justification by faith alone. Faith is required by the Law, and faith is the sole means of union with Christ whose righteousness vindicates us at the judgment. All the other obedience that comes from faith is the fruit of that union, not the means of it. So Romans 2:13b is not a contradiction of Paul's teaching of justification by faith alone." [1]

[1] From Piper's sermon entitled "No Partiality with God" Part 2. See
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/99/013199.html


N.T. Wright states:

"This passage has often been read differently. We heard yesterday that Augustine had problems with it (perhaps the only thing in common between Augustine and E. P. Sanders). That is hardly surprising; here is the first statement about justification in Romans, and lo and behold it affirms justification according to works! The doers of the law, he says, will be justified (2.13). Shock, horror; Paul cannot (so many have thought) have really meant it. So the passage has been treated as a hypothetical position which Paul then undermines by showing that nobody can actually achieve it; or, by Sanders for instance, as a piece of unassimilated Jewish preaching which Paul allows to stand even though it conflicts with other things he says. But all such theories are undermined by exegesis itself, not least by observing the many small but significant threads that stitch Romans 2 into the fabric of the letter as a whole. Paul means what he says. Granted, he redefines what ‘doing the law’ really means; he does this in chapter 8, and again in chapter 10, with a codicil in chapter 13. But he makes the point most compactly in Philippians 1.6: he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion on the day of Christ Jesus. The ‘works’ in accordance with which the Christian will be vindicated on the last day are not the unaided works of the self-help moralist. Nor are they the performance of the ethnically distinctive Jewish boundary-markers (sabbath, food-laws and circumcision). They are the things which show, rather, that one is in Christ; the things which are produced in one’s life as a result of the Spirit’s indwelling and operation. In this way, Romans 8.1–17 provides the real answer to Romans 2.1–16. Why is there now ‘no condemnation’? Because, on the one hand, God has condemned sin in the flesh of Christ (let no-one say, as some have done, that this theme is absent in my work; it was and remains central in my thinking and my spirituality); and, on the other hand, because the Spirit is at work to do, within believers, what the Law could not do – ultimately, to give life, but a life that begins in the present with the putting to death of the deeds of the body and the obedient submission to the leading of the Spirit."[2]

[2] From Wright's talk entitled "New Perspectives on Paul". See http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm

Gospel Presentation: Two Ways to Live

Probably the best gospel tract I have ever seen. Check it out by clicking the link below:

http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/index.asp

Book Recommendation: “Perspectives Old and New on Paul

Stephen Westerholm’s “Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics” is probably the best book to get acquainted not only with the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP), but to also brush up on the Old Perspective on Paul or the “Lutheran” position (Westerholm defines “Lutheran” as the basic traditional/reformed positions). The book is divided into two major selections, with the first part being a survey of some of the important “players” in Pauline theology, such as the historic “Lutheran” scholars (Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Wesley), the modern “Lutheran” scholars (Cranfield, Schreiner, Thielman), and some proponents of the NPP (Sanders, Dunn, and Wright). This selection alone is worth the price of the book, as I can’t think of any other resource that gives such a broad overview of all the “key” scholars in the debate.

The second selection, Westerholm gives a reasonable and strong exegetical defense for his “Lutheran/traditional/reformed” position by examining key words and phases in the debate such as examining Paul usage of “righteousness” (dikaiosness) and “law”, and by analyzing Paul’s thoughts on “justification by faith” in each of his epistles. If anyone wishes to seriously engage in the Pauline debate and I would highly recommend this book.

Christian Social and Political Engagement

Check out this discussion with Tony Campolo and Russell Moore on the Al Mohler Radio Show.

Campolo thinks Christians should broaden the social issue to more than the abortion issue, and Moore thinks the abortion issue is the ultimate issue. Interesting stuff.

http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2006-07-21

Congratulations Ariane and Tony!! :)

The wedding party....

Kunal, Brad, and Dan

Tony's amazingly cute son, JOSH!! :)

Dan in rare form, on the dance floor.

Julia and Kunal, getting rough.....

New Paul Perspective Part 1

The New Paul Perspective (NPP) is a theological framework which suggest for a new understanding of Pauline theology in which 2nd Temple Judaism is viewed primarily as a religion of "grace" rather than one of "legalism". Therefore, Paul's critique of the Pharisees was not primarily one of legalism (trying to earn salvation by works), but one due to nationalistic boasting which required Gentiles to convert to Judaism (proselyte) in order to be identified as God's people.

The three most prominent NPP proponents are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. I personally have not studied first-hand any of Sander's and Dunn's works (even though I have read critiques of their works), but I have read quite a few of Wright's articles and books, including "The New Testament and the People of God" and "The Climax of the Covenant".

With that being said, I will try to examine the New Paul Perspective with a focus on Wright's work by addressing the following questions:

1. What are the NPP proponents trying to emphasize and say?
2. What are the major criticisms of the NPP, especially Wright, and are they valid?
3. How should the church respond to the NPP, namely Wright?

Congrats Karen and James!!

BETTER MICHAEL JORDANS IN "HEAVEN"????

Here's a quick summary of a great article entitled "Heaven:Not Just an Eternal Day Off" by the late Anthony Hoekema, who taught at Calvin Theological Seminary.

Is heaven boring?*

"Life in heaven sounds downright boring, if some descriptions are to be believed. In my boyhood, psalms were sung very slowly in church, and I thought heaven was like that—a place where one sat on hard benches all day long and sang Dutch Psalms. I was not enthralled. Huck Finn thought heaven was a place where a person would "go around all day long with a harp and sing, forever and forever." This future life is often seen as an eternal existence without bodies. Also, it is thought of as "above," somewhere off in space, far removed from this earth—an escape, in fact."

Heaven is a tempory existence*

"Are we then to spend eternity in space, disembodied spirits who flit from cloud to cloud, plucking golden harps in an endless day off? We can agree with the element of truth in these teachings: Paul tells us that when he dies he will go to be with Christ (Phil. 1:23), who has now been taken up into heaven (Acts 1:11). And he also says that this state is "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8). But, and here is the critical point, this will be a temporary existence—one where we shall eagerly await the resurrection of the body to take place on the last day, at Jesus' second coming.

Ressurection is forever*

"Resurrected bodies are not intended just to float in space, or to flit from cloud to cloud. They call for a new earth on which to live and to work, glorifying God. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body, in fact, makes no sense whatever apart from the doctrine of the new earth."

Renewed and Purified, not Annihilated*

"Hoekema quoting Edward Thurneysen writes, "The world into which we shall enter in the Parousia (2nd coming) of Jesus Christ is therefore not another world; it is this world, this heaven, this earth; both, however, passed away and renewed. It is these forests, these fields, these cities, these streets, these people, that will be the scene of redemption. At present they are battlefields, full of the strife and sorrow of the not-yet-accomplished consummation; then they will be fields of victory, fields of harvest, where out of seed that was sown with tears the everlasting sheaves will be reaped and brought home" (Zwischen den Zeiten, 1931, p. 209)."

Restoration, not the Destruction of "WORK" in the New Heaven and Earth*

"In the resurrection we shall retain our individuality, but in a heightened way. This means that we shall not only still possess the gifts God gave us, but that our potential for exercising these gifts will then be realized to the full—as it never was in this life. Using the analogy between the talents of a child and the fully developed gifts of an adult, Abraham Kuyper suggests that in the life to come we will retain the seeds of our present gifts, but God will then give to what is developed from those seeds a new form that will be in harmony with the everlasting glory of his kingdom (Gemeene Gracie, I, 461)."

"In the beginning man was given the so-called cultural mandate—the command to rule over the earth and to develop a God-glorifying culture. Because of man's fall into sin, that cultural mandate has never been carried out in the way God intended. Only on the new earth will it be perfectly and sinlessly fulfilled. Only then shall we be able to rule the earth properly."

Better Rembrants, Better Raphaels, Better MICHAEL JORDANS???*

"The possibilities that now rise before us boggle the mind. Will there be "better Beethoven" on the new earth, as one author has suggested? Shall we then see better Rembrandts, better Raphaels, better Constables? Shall we read better poetry, better drama, and better prose?"

"Will scientists continue to advance in technological achievement, will geologists continue to dig out the treasures of the earth, and will architects continue to build imposing and attractive structures? Will there be exciting new adventures in space travel? Shall we perhaps be able to explore new Perelandras? We do not know. But we do know that human dominion over nature will then be perfect. Our culture will glorify God in ways that surpass our most fantastic dreams."

Developing and Building the Kingdom, NOW*

This all means a lot for us now. If there is continuity as well as discontinuity between this earth and the new earth, we must work hard to develop our gifts and talents, and to come as close as we can to producing, in the strength of the Spirit, a Christian culture today. Through our kingdom service, the building materials for the new earth are now being gathered. Bibles are being translated, peoples are being evangelized, believers are being renewed, and cultures are being transformed. Only eternity will reveal the full significance of what has been done for Christ here on earth.

*These summary points are mine, and do not appear in the original article.

The full article can be found here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/122/54.0.html

Paul's Desire: "Resurrection From the Dead"

For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-- 10that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. 12Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. 16Only let us hold true to what we have attained. - Phil. 3:8-16

Paul’s Desires

Knowing and embracing Christ is everything for Paul, so much so, that everything is considered "rubbish" compared to his relationship with him (Phil 3:8). Even though Paul is presently united with Christ, he understands that this relationship is not at its consummated and final state. So what is the futuristic (eschatological) state that Paul longs for? Is it being with Christ in a spiritual heavenly realm (Phil.1:21)? Or is it something else?

Paul's ultimate goal isn't just to be with Christ in the present or in heaven when he dies, but "for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (v.14), that is, to "attain the resurrection from the dead, which will happen when Christ comes back to fully establish his kingdom on a physical new earth and heaven (1 Corinthians 15).

Even though Paul knows that Christ will come back, he doesn't sit back and just “chill”, but he strives and presses forward to obtain “the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil 3:12-14). Just like Paul, we should also strive to obtain the "resurrection from the dead", so that we can fully enjoy Christ's presence. But how should we strive to obtain this prize?

How Should We Strive To Obtain the Prize?

First, we should know that God in his sovereign love in Christ is the one who provides the ultimate power in our striving and promises to one day complete it.

6And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:6)

12Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Phil 2:12-13)

20But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself (Phil 3:20)

Second, we should strive for in humility and love for others

3Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others (Phil 2:3)

Third, we should hold fast to God's word

16holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. (Phil.2:16)

Fourth, we should be partners for the gospel, the message that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of the universe

3I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, 4always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, 5because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. 6And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:3-6)

2I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. 3Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Phil 5:2-3)

Fifth, we should pray, especially when anxious

6do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:6-7)

PCUSA and Recommendation #5

Yesterday, the PCUSA voted 298-221 (57% to 43%) to approval the PUP (Peace, Unity, and Purity) Report, which includes the controversial "recommendation #5", which basically allows individual governing body (presbyteries) to interpret and determine the ordination standards. For an example, a presbytery can decide that an unrepentant homosexual is "ok" to be a pastor and that this determination doesn't go against the "essential tenets of the Reformed faith", therefore making it more easier* to ordain an unrepentant homosexual person.

Despite voting in the PUP report, the PCUSA also voted that the "fidelity-chastity" ordination requirement be left in the Book of Order, which clearly defines that a ordained person must practice fidelity in marriage (between a man and woman) or "chastity" in being single.

So on the same day, the PCUSA voted in a rule (recommendation #5) that would allow some presbyteries to make it more easier to ordain unrepentant homosexuals, they also reaffirmed a requirement more or less created to prevent unrepentant homosexuals from becoming pastors.

In the end, I am not sure if we have made any progress. I believe until the PCUSA takes a definite stance on the issue of homosexual ordination, we will continue to have these "ordination wars" and we will never truly have "peace", "unity" and "purity".


*According to one blogger ( http://reformed-angler.blogspot.com/2006/06/pup-voting-underway.html), the process and results of the governing body can still be reviewed by a higher authority, therefore at least in theory it doesn't seem like the individual governing body can do whatever they want.

For more information check out:http://www.layman.org/

The Trinity and PCUSA

There's been a lot of buzz about the "receiving" of a report that would propose alternative names for the Trinity such as*:

1. Rainbow, Ark and Dove

2. Speaker, Word and Breath

3. Overflowing Font, Living Water and Flowing River

4. Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-Giving Womb


Without studying the issue or the report, I am inclined to agree with Rev. Lovelady which states in the Layman article " that the Trinity paper "suffers from a confusion about the name of God." He (Lovelady) said there is a difference between a name and a metaphor." It seems to me that God may express his being/character in a metaphor, but may wish to be addressed as something else, in this case I presume it should only be "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".




* See the article entitled "Trinity paper is 'received' by GA, but not approved" by the Layman: http://www.layman.org/

ME Church

Found this on the 9 Marks webstie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RGHrJMv-1s

1 Timothy 4:3-5: Chen's Wedding Verses

3who (false teachers) forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer-1 Tim. 4:3-5

During our wedding ceremony, Pastor John kinda made fun of me for picking these verses (it seems obscure and not a typical wedding verse), so I wanted to briefly give some reasons why I chose them. These verse teach and remind me that:

1. God is creator of all things good, including marriage.

3who (false teachers) forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good

2. God's good gifts, like marriage, are to received with thanksgiving by Christians

God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

3. God's gifts are good or "made holy" by 2 things: 1) the word of God and 2) prayer

5for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer

- I believe God makes his gifts holy by "the word of God" by him declaring it so, that is, he is the authority and source of what's good or bad. We see this in the creation narrative in Genesis, by which God declares his creation as "good".

- I also believe God's gift are made holy by thankful prayer from Christians (v.3 and 5), that is, the goodness of God's gift must result in praises to the glory of the Creator.

Therefore, I chose these verses because it reminds my wife and I that the goodness of marriage originates from God and is also conditoned if it is received with praises to God by us (and others).

Book Recommendations "Presuppositional Apologetics"

"Presuppositional apologists claim that there is no neutrality, invoking Jesus’ saying that “one cannot serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24). There can be no compromise between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world. Unbelief leads to distortion of the truth, exchanging the truth for a lie (Rom. 1:25). Only by trusting God’s Word can we come to a saving knowledge of Christ (John 5:24, 8:31, 15:3, Rom. 10:17). And trusting entails presupposing: accepting God’s Word as what it is, the foundation of all human knowledge, the ultimate criterion of truth and error (Deut. 18:18-19, 1 Cor. 14:37, Col. 2:2-4, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 1:19-21). So the apologetic argument, like all human inquiries into truth, must presuppose the truths of God’s Word." - John Frame from the article " Presuppositional Apologetics," for IVP Dicitonary of Apologetics



"Every Thought Captive: A Study Manual for the Defense of Christian Truth" by Richard Pratt is written for high schoolers, and it's a wonderful introduction to presuppositional apologetics. It's a brief and easy-to- read book, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who desires to share their faith in Christ.

"Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction" by John Frame is also an introduction to presuppositional apologetics, but it is written at a more college/adult-level. I would still recommend Richard Pratt's book over this one, if you have never read anything substantial on apologetics. And if you want something more scholarly on presuppositional apologetics, please refer to John Frame's "The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God", which should be read by every serious teacher of the Bible.

Congrats ERIC!!!!!!!!

9Marks of a Healthy Church MEMBER: Expositional LISTENING

Sometimes we are too quick to blame the preacher for us not "getting anything" from the sermon, but maybe it's our fault because we don't really know how to listen to a sermon. Below is a few excerpts from Thabiti Anabwile's article on how to listen (Expositional Listening) to a sermon and you can find the entire article at the link below.

Dan

9Marks of a Healthy Church MEMBER: Expositional LISTENING

By Thabiti Anyabwile

What is “expositional listening”?

There is an important corollary for every member of a local church. Just as the pastor’s preaching agenda is to be determined by the meaning of Scripture, so too must the listening agenda of the Christian be driven by the meaning of Scripture. What we are listening for when the Word is preached is not primarily “practical how-to advice,” though Scripture teaches us much about everyday matters. Nor should we listen for messages and ideas that bolster our self-esteem or that rouse us for political and social causes. Rather, as members of Christian churches we are listening for the voice and message of God as revealed in His word. We are listening to hear God speak to us the things He has in His omniscient love written for His glory and our blessing. Listening for the meaning of a passage of Scripture, and accepting that meaning as the main idea to be grasped for our personal and corporate lives as Christians, is what we mean by “expositional listening.”

How can church members cultivate the habit of expositional listening?

Well, if expositional listening is so vital to the health of individual church members and the church as a whole, how does a person form such a habit? At least six practical ideas can foster more attentive listening to God’s word.
1. Meditate on the sermon passage during your quiet time.
2. Invest in a good set of commentaries.
3. Talk and pray with friends about the sermon after church
4. Listen to and act on the sermon throughout the week.
5. Develop the habit of addressing any questions about the text itself.
6. Cultivate humility.

* Taken from:

http://9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526CHID598014CIID2190814,00.html

Go Spurs!!! GO!!!

More on The Da Vinci Code

Westminster Seminary (PA) has set-up a webpage to help answer questions/controversies relating to the Da Vinci Code

http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/

"May 27th" -Meditations on Ephesians 5:25-33

1. Dan love Julia like Christ loved the church

25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

2. Dan love Julia by giving up your life for her

25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

3. Dan present Julia as holy and without blemish through God's word

26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

4. Dan love Julia like she part of your own body

28In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies...31"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

5. Dan make your relationship with Julia, reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church

32This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church

I was a Witness Last Night (for Eric)

"Do Not Be Ashamed of Lord": Mediations on 2 Timothy 1:1-14

Being ashamed of God or Christ as a 'still sanctifying' Christian is easy to do, especially when the consequences of following Christ seems too much to bear such as a lost of reputation, money, family's approval, and maybe your life.

In 2 Timothy 1-14, Paul writes a letter to Timothy encouraging him not to be ashamed of being a Christian and exhorting him not to compromise the gospel truth despite the pressure of persecution. Lets see how Paul exhorts Timothy, so that we can be encouraged not to be "ashamed of Lord" too.

1. Don't be ashamed of God but share in the suffering for the gospel and by the power of God

8Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God,

In verse 8, Paul, who is in prison, commands Timothy not to be ashamed of God or his imprisonment, but to suffer for the gospel through the power of God. It's important to note that Paul doesn't tell Timothy to avoid suffering, but to "share in it", that is, he is reminding Timothy that in order to be a godly Christian, it will involve suffering of some kind (2 Timothy 3:12). But Paul also reminds Timothy that he is not alone in this suffering for the gospel but "the power of God "will help him.

2. Past Testimony of God's Power

We should not be ashamed or fearful in our suffering for the gospel because the power of God has been shown in the past by God's redemptive purposes in Christ.

a. God's power has been shown through our holy calling, that is, through the regeneration of our hearts by the Holy Spirit

who (God) saved us and called us to[a] a holy calling (regeneration)(v.9),

b. God's power in salvation and regeneration was given outside of our works but was received based on God's sovereign design and grace through Christ

(Being Saved/Regenerated) not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began (v.9)

c. God's power in his purpose and grace has been reveal in the glory and beauty of Christ, who has conquered death and brought live through the good news.

and which now (salvation/redemption) has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, (v.10)

3. Present and Future Promise of God's Power

a. In verse 12, Paul is not ashamed and won't compromise the gospel in his suffering because he is convinced that God is able to protect him through the Spirit (v.14) until the day of God's judgment ( 2 Tim. 4:8)

But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed (God), and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. (v.12)

b. In verse 13-14, Paul encourages Timothy to be devoted to Christ and his teaching, knowing that the Holy Spirit will also help guard the gospel

13Follow the pattern of the sound[d] words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 14By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit (gospel) entrusted to you.

Conclusion

So FPC, let us never be ashamed of God and Christ by compromising the gospel, but let us be strengthen, realizing God's power in the past and in his present and future promise of the "Holy Spirit, who dwells within us, helping us guard the good deposit".

Please also pray for our brother in Christ, Pastor (Toby) Brown, and the Mission Presbytery (PC(USA)), which will be making some critical decisions on how to deal with some tough denominational (PC(USA) issues. Pray that they will be given wisdom on how to best guard the good deposit (gospel).

See below for more information on the issues they will be facing:

http://classicalpresbyterian.blogspot.com/

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-05-01

"From MJ to Piper" :Together for The Gospel Part 2

From MJ to Piper


A couple of years ago, I went to see Michael Jordan, who was my childhood hero, play against the Houston Rockets during his final year of pro basketball. The experience was a bit of a disappointment as I saw the once invincible MJ look like a mere human as he struggled, leading his team, Washington Wizards, to a defeat against the Rockets.

So as I anticipated John Piper's talk last week, I was a little nervous (for whatever reason) that I may once again experience another disappointing moment from one of my heroes. As the day of Piper's talk came, I wasn't expecting too much from Piper's message as I told my friend, Geoff, since we had probably heard this talk on 'preaching' like 5 billion times, so the only real excitement for me was to physically see Piper. But to my amazement and God's mercy, Piper probably gave the single greatest sermon/talk I have ever heard.

Piper, as always, spoke with weighty intellectual depth coupled with deep authentic passion for God's truth. Piper's balance of fire (passion) and light (truth) for God and Christ has always inspired me (since it seems so rare for a person to have both qualities), and seeing and experiening it live for the first time, made me feel like the very presence of God was there.

In Piper's talk, he spoke on:

1. Preaching that is aware of the glory of God
2. What you believe about the glory of God?
3. How do people awaken to the glory of God?

a. Essential components of the gospel

1. The Gospel is an objective message about Christ, that is, it's about a historic Christ which did something in history apart from us.
2. The Gospel is a message about Christ's accomplishments, like propitiation, expiation, and fulfillment of the law.
3. The Gospel is received by faith a lone
4. The Gospel is about benefits (justification, sanctification, reconciliation, and etc.) received by faith
5. The Gospel main benefit is God, himself, or as Justin and Kevin would say "Being with God"

4. How does the glory of God relate to expository preaching?


My Takeaway

My main takeaway from Piper's sermon is that God has chosen to reveal his glory in the gospel, which is spoken in WORDS, therefore as teachers/leaders of the church, we need to expound the gospel from the Bible to people in order to awaken them to the beauty and glory of Christ (2 Corinth. 4), and not rely too heavily on other methods

Together for the Gospel Part 1

The epic conference was really good. I really enjoyed being with 2,000 of my fellow brothers in Christ, who are so committed for the gospel of Christ. Here’s a belief summary of what I learned from each of the speakers:

Mark Dever – “The Pastor’s Understanding of His Own Role”

Using 1 Corinthians 4, Dever taught that a real minister has 3 marks: 1) a person with a cross-center message 2) a person with a cross-centered life 3) a person who has a cross-centered followers

Dever’s message reminds me that my ministry is a gift from God, who is my master and judge.

Ligon Duncan – “Preaching from the Old Testament”

Duncan taught us the importance of understanding and teaching the OT Testament and he gives 8 points on how to do it:

1. Preach the OT has a Christian book
2. Preach expository
3. Preach Christ
4. Preach that there is one plan of redemptive history
5. Preach grace
6. Preach Character of God
7. Preach Experientially
8. Preach for the Christian life (moral law/3 rd use of the law)
   

Al Mohler – “Preaching with the Culture in View”

Mohler reminds us that culture isn’t irrelevant, but as teachers of God’s word, we shouldn’t be too embedded in it. Mohler also reminds the audience that we should engage in the culture always with the mind and mission to make known the gospel of Christ.

Mohler also describes our culture as: 1) seeking self-fulfillment 2) being self-sufficient 3) self-defined 4) self-absorbed 5) self-transcendent 6) self-enhanced and 7) self-secured.

R.C. Sproul – “The Center of Christian Preaching: Justification by Faith”

Dr. Sproul gave a passionate and heart-felt plea to church leaders to remain firm and faithful to the doctrine of justification. Dr. Sproul reinforces the need to hold on to the doctrine of justification (faith alone) by reminding and analyzing for us theCatholic’s view of justification (faith + works).

John Piper – “Why Expositional Preaching is Particularly Glorifying to God”

Dr. Piper talk was awesome. I’ll write a full article about it later.

C.J. Mahaney – “Watch Your Life and Doctrine”

I thanked God that C.J. was at the conference. He really made the conference fun and exciting with all his clever and funny comments. (You really had to be there to understand why he made the conference so special).

CJ spoke about how church leaders need to watch their life and doctrine, reminding them with 1Timothy 4, that the consequence of this, is salvation for the minister and his congregation (there is an eternal consequence).

John MacArthur – “40 Years of Gospel Ministry”

Dr. MacArthur spoke from his heart about his experiences at Grace Community Church. I loved it when he shared about how bad his preaching was during his early years in ministry, it was so bad that one of his professor, who MacArthur truly admired, wrote “YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT” on a piece paper given to him after his sermon. These and other stories really gave me a better perspective on this godly man. If you’re a MacArthur fan, you need to get a copy of his talk.

"God Creates the Universe": Reflection on Heb. 11:1-3

1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. - Heb. 11:1-3

God Creates the Universe

In verse 3, the writer of Hebrews states that when Christians see the universe they understand that it was created by God.

Difference in Belief

So how come a Christian can see that the universe was created by the God of the Bible, but most non-Christians can't?

Here are some reasons why:

1. God has revealed this truth in His authoritative Word (the Bible)

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by[f] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him (Col. 1:15-16)


2. God has opened the Christian's eye and heart to see and love the truth about the world through the Bible and the Holy Spirit

14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16"For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. ( 2 Corinthians 2:14-15)

3. Nonbelievers are still enslaved by their sins, thus they suppress the truth about God

19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:19-22)


Blind Faith?

If this is so, is the Christian faith one that is "blind", that is, is a Christian irrational for believing in biblical truths about the world, like intelligent design?

I don't think so, because there is nothing irrationally for a person to trust in a God, who is invisible (1), all-knowing and all-powerful (Romans 11), who has made himself know through Jesus Christ (Heb. 1), who died on a cross and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15) and has been changing the hearts of people in the past and the present through the Holy Spirit (Heb.11).

But in fact, to take a set of facts and observations from the world, and draw from them a conclusion( 2) of the nonexistence of God is a greater leap of "faith" than a Christian that trusts in a God, who has revealed himself in history, the world, and in the Bible.



Notes:

(1) "The conviction of the unseen" in verse 1, isn't saying that the Christian faith excludes all visible evidences, but that their ultimate trust in the unseen future is in a living God, who is personally invisible, but his works have been and are being seen through history, the world, and the Bible.

(2) All conclusions from observing facts and evidences are opinions, that is, there is a subjective component to all human deductions, therefore an atheistic scientist can not say they are being "objective" and a Christian is being "subjective" but both are subjective in that the Christian has adopted a Christian worldview through the Bible and Holy Spirit (See Point #2) and the nonbeliever is still subjected to his/her "fleshly" worldvew (See Point #3).

Together for the Gospel

Every year, 4 sporting events get me really excited; 1. Opening Day of NBA 2. NBA All-Star Weekend 3. NCAA March Madness 4. NBA Playoffs.

Next Wednesday to Friday, I will be attending an event that has gotten me as excited as all these basketball events and maybe even a little bit more, that is, I am going to “ Together for the Gospels Conference” in Louisville, Kentucky.

The event has an All Star line-up with, CJ Mahaney, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and PIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPERRRRRR.



For more info. see:

http://www.togetherforthegospel.org/

Christian Activism?

Should the church be engaged in social activism?

1. Michael Horton is against social activism for the church.

See:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/global/printer.html?/ct/2006/001/2.43.html


2. John Frame responds to Michael Horton's article, with an appeal for social activism.

http://www.christianculture.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi?category=3&id=1145485285


What do you guys think?

DANNY

taken from Vanessa's and Alan's blog:

http://www.alanvanessa.blogspot.com/

Book Recommendations

The Church (Contours of Christian Theology) by Edmund Clowney

Dr. Clowney's book is a great book on the biblical definition of the church and it's mission. This book also deals with some controversial topics such as the charismatic movement and the role of women in the church. I would highly recommend this easy-to-read and comprehensive book of the church for all church leaders



Speaking Truth in Love by David Powlison

Dr. Powlison states early in his book, that the gospel is the heart of biblical counseling (an action all Christian should be doing regardless of one's church position), and not just something Christians accept during their conversion. Then Dr. Powlison unpacks how Christians should counsel through the gospel as individuals (Part 1) and as a corporate body (Part 2) by examining scripture, giving personal models, and sharing his godly wisdom. So, if you want to learn how to counsel or love people through the gospel and how the church should pursue counseling formally and informally, this book is perfect for you.



Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 by Iain Murray

This book is a historic analysis (between the periods of 1950 to 2000) of how generally, evangelicals have lost their identity of standing firm for the gospel for the sake of ecumenicalism (church unity) and intellectually credibility. I thought this book was very helpful in understanding how good evangelicals (Billy Graham, J.I.Packer, and Marty Lloyd Jones) from the past, have dealt with unity among liberals and to see their successes and sadly their many failures, thus giving us the privilege of learning immensely from them. I also thought this was an important book for me, especially in regards to the current issues surrounding the PCUSA

Thoughts on Redemption

"Redeemed man must not internalize his salvation so that he thinks narrowly in terms of a "soul-saving" deliverance. To the contrary, redemption involves his total life-style as a social, cultural creature. Rather than withdrawing narrowly into a restricted form of "spiritual" existence, redeemed man must move out with a total-and-life perspective."- pg. 110 of The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmser Robertson.

Should Churches Leave PCUSA?

A Classical Prebyterian's blog has posted a blog article entitled "Schism Never?Ever? . Within that article, he as a link to David Teague's (from VOW.org) article, which tries to make a case that evangelicals should not separate from the PC(USA).

I think the article is pretty good, but his case is ultimately not convincing, because in my opinion, he has wrongly equated the denomination with the church.


John Frame writes:

It is fairly obvious that Novatian and Donatus should not have left the one, true church to start their own churches. They were, in truth, "schismatic." Sometimes today, one believer will call another one "schismatic" when he leaves one denomination to join another. Is that fair?

I do believe that it is possible to commit the sin of schism today. Most of the time, when people start new denominations, adding to the divisions in the body of Christ, I do not hesitate to call them schismatic. I also consider them schismatic when they switch denominations for the same reasons that motivated Novatian and Donatus: pride, unwillingness to submit to legitimate discipline, desire for autonomy.2 But in many, perhaps most, situations where people make such transfers, there is no schismatic behavior at all. The true church is scattered among many denominations today. Often transfer is simply a matter of wanting to go from one part of the church to another, to share the gifts of Christians in a different group. Let us become clear about this: leaving the church is one thing; leaving a denomination quite another. The former is a very serious matter, the latter much less so.

This is the sort of practical case in which it is very dangerous for us to identify the New Testament church with some modern denomination. That confusion can lead to unfair judgments against one another. We should rather seek to make the right distinctions, to judge wisely. The church is found in the denominations; but the denominations are not the church.


Take from:
http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/joh_frame/PT.Frame.EVR.3.html

To see John Frame's full argument, read his book "Evangelical Reunion", which can be found here:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/johnframe.html

Who Is Wise? Reflections on James 3:13-18

13Who is wise and understanding among you? c. 14But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. - James 3:13-18


Who is wise?

13Who is wise and understanding among you?

1. James states that godly wisdom (v.17) is shown and known through one's good conduct (v. 13).

By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.

2. People have ungodly wisdom if they have jealous and selfish hearts (v.14)

14But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth (wisdom).

3. Ungodly wisdom is earthly, unspiritual, and demonic. (v.15)

15This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.

4. Ungodly wisdom produces chaotic and evil effects (v.16)

16For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.

5. Godly wisdom is and produces peace, kindness, open-mindedness, and love (v.17)

17But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

6. Godly wisdom, which is and produces peace, cultivates righteousness (v.18)

18And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace


From these verses, I think there are at least two principles that determine if we have godly wisdom. The first principle to determine if we have godly wisdom is our motivation. (See v.13-14). Are we seeking to show our wisdom mainly to prove someone is wrong or to increase our pride, or are we using our wisdom for the other person’s well being and for God’s glory. Secondly, to know if we have godly wisdom, we need to examine the effects of our wisdom (See v. 16-18), that is, does it produce peace, kindness, and love, or does it produce disorder and hatred for people.

May God give us godly wisdom,

Dan

1st Annual Crab Day Pictures

The Da Vinci Code Part 5

The Church’s Challenge

1. Battle against Neo-Gnosticism

Wright states “Neo-Gnosticism is the philosophy that invites you to search deep inside yourself and discover some exciting things by which you must then live. It is the philosophy which declares that the only real moral imperative is that you should then be true to what you find when you engage in that deep inward search. But this is not a religion of redemption. It is not at all a Jewish vision of the covenant God who sets free the helpless slaves. It appeals, on the contrary, to the pride that says “I’m really quite an exciting person, deep down, whatever I may look like outwardly” — the theme of half the cheap movies and novels in today’s world. It appeals to the stimulus of that ever-deeper navel-gazing (“finding out who I really am”) which is the subject of a million self-help books, and the home-made validation of a thousand ethical confusions. It corresponds, in other words, to what a great many people in our world want to believe and want to do, rather than to the hard and bracing challenge of the very Jewish gospel of Jesus. It appears to legitimate precisely that sort of religion which a large swathe of America and a fair chunk of Europe yearns for: a free-for-all, do-it-yourself spirituality, with a strong though ineffective agenda of social protest against the powers that be, and an I'm-OK-you're-OK attitude on all matters religious and ethical. At least, with one exception: You can have any sort of spirituality you like (Zen, labyrinths, Tai Chi) as long as it isn’t orthodox Christianity.”

2. The Challenge of Jesus

Wright states “By contrast, the challenge of Jesus, in the 21st century as in the first, is that we should look away from ourselves and get on board with the project the one true God launched at creation and re-launched with Jesus himself. The authentic Christian gospel, which is good news about something that has happened as a result of which the world is a different place — this gospel demands that we submit to Jesus as Lord and allow all other allegiances, loves and self-discoveries to be realigned in that light. God’s project, and God’s gospel, are rooted in solid history as opposed to Gnostic fantasy and its modern equivalents. Genuine Christianity is to be expressed in self-giving love and radical holiness, not self-cosseting self-discovery. And it lives by, and looks for the completion of, the new world in which God will put all things to rights and wipe away all tears from all eyes; in which all knees will bow at the name of Jesus, not because he had a secret love-child, not because he was a teacher of recondite wisdom, not because he showed us how we could get in touch with the hidden feminine, but because he died as the fulfillment of the Scriptural story of God’s people and rose as the fulfillment of the world-redeeming purposes of the same creator God; and because, in that death and resurrection, we discover him to be the one at whose name every knee shall indeed bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, confessing Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father.”

Great Minds Think A Like

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=608

The Da Vinci Code Part 4

Answers to the 5 Myths

1. Canonical Gospels was derived earlier than the Nag Hammadi books

Wright states “The Nag Hammadi books include the now well known so-called “Gospel of Thomas,” and other similar collections of sayings such as the “Gospel of Philip.” Despite the current fashion for preferring and even privileging them as giving us access to Jesus himself, I believe they are (a) demonstrably late (late second century at the earliest), though they may contain traces of earlier material; (b) demonstrably derived from the earlier, and now canonical, material…”

2. Canonical Gospels, which were written earlier than the Nag Hammadi books, present Jesus as divine.

Wright states “More especially, the divinity of Jesus is already firmly established by Paul, within 20 or 30 years of Jesus’ death. John and Hebrews — and indeed Luke and Matthew, who are almost as explicit — are written by [A.D.] 90 or so at the latest, quite possibly much earlier”

3. The Nag Hammadi books present a different theology than one from a Jewish context and the gospels.

1. Platonic viewpoint

Wright states “First, they involve a massive step away from the Jewish context of Jesus’ ministry and towards some kind of Platonic viewpoint. Jesus’ idea of the Kingdom of God coming on earth as in heaven is transformed into a kingdom-teaching which is all about a private and detached spirituality”

2. Missing Narrative

Wright states “Second, the Nag Hammadi codices have taken a large step away from a narrative world and into detached aphorisms and isolated teachings. There is no attempt to tell the story of Jesus or even stories about him, or to see that story and those stories within the context of the larger story of God and the world, of God and Israel.”

3. Simply a Teacher

Wright states “In particular, third, they have seen Jesus not as the one who, climactically and decisively, died on the cross and rose again, but simply as a teacher. This is the heart of it all”

The Da Vinci Code Part 3

5 Myths Expressed by the Book

1. There are older texts (found in Nag Hammadi) that states that Jesus is human and not divine

Wright writes “First, there were dozens if not hundreds of other documents about Jesus. Some of these have now come to light, not least in the books discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt 60 years ago. These focus on Jesus more as a human being, a great religious teacher, than as a divine being. And it is these books which give us the real truth about Jesus.”

2. The 4 Gospels were later products of the church

Wright states “Second, the four Gospels in the New Testament were later products aimed at divinizing Jesus and claiming power and prestige for the church. They were selected, for these reasons, at the time of Constantine in the fourth century, and the multiple alternative voices were ruthlessly suppressed.”

3. The 4 Gospels doesn’t reveal the truth Jesus

Wright states “Third, therefore, Jesus himself wasn’t at all like the four canonical Gospels describe him. He didn’t think he was God’s son, or that we would die for the sins of the world; he didn’t come to found a new religion. He was a human being pure and simple, who gave some wonderful moral and spiritual teaching, that’s all. Oh, and he may well have been married, perhaps even with a child on the way, when his career was cut short by death.”

4. Christianity is based on a mistake

Wright states “Fourth, therefore: Christianity as we know it is based on a mistake. Mainstream Christianity is sexist, especially anti-women and anti-sex itself. It has aimed at, and in some places achieved, considerable social power and prestige, enabling it to be politically quietist and conformist. This, I find, goes down especially well with those who are escaping from either fundamentalism or certain types of Roman Catholicism.”

5. It’s time to give up on the Church’s view of Christ

Wright states “Fifth, the real pay-off: It is time to give up, as historically unwarranted, theologically unjustified, and spiritually and socially damaging, the picture of Jesus and Christian origins which the church has put about for so long, and to return to the supposedly original vision of Jesus himself, not least in terms of getting in touch with a different form of spirituality based on metaphor rather than literal truth, of feeling rather than structure, of discovering whatever faith you find you can believe in. This will revive the truth for which Jesus lived, and perhaps for which he died.”

The Da Vinci Code Part 2

1. “Facts” from “The Da Vinci Code”

Wright writes” I only know well one of the buildings which features in the book, namely Westminster Abbey. All right, Brown knows where the Isaac Newton monument is. But he still makes gaffe after gaffe which could have been corrected by 10 minutes of walking around with his eyes open. The Abbey has towers, not spires. You cannot see Parliament from St James’s Park. College Garden is an extremely private place, not “a very public place” outside the Abbey’s walls (527). You cannot look out into it from the Chapter House; nor is there a “long hallway” leading to the latter, with a “heavy wooden door” at the end (529 ff.). Ten minutes’ observation by a junior research assistant could have put all this right. If Brown is so careless, and carelessly inventive, in details as easy to check as those, why should we trust him in anything else?”

2. The Priory of Sion

The Da Vinci Code states under “FACT” states: “The Prior of Sion- a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s Bioliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.”

Wright states “And when it comes, second, to the Priory of Sion, the documents which Brown, following Baigent and Leigh, cite as evidence were forgeries cooked up by three zany Frenchmen in the 1950s. They cheerfully confessed to this in a devastating television program shown on British television in February this year”

3. Secret Symbols in Da Vinci's paintings?

Wright states “And as for Brown’s theory about Da Vinci’s "Last Supper," according to which the Beloved Disciple next to Jesus is actually a woman, that he/she and Jesus are joined at the hip, that they are sitting in such a way as to display the letter V, apparently a sign of femininity, and also the letter M, for Mary, or Magdalene, or marriage, or something else, this is pure fantasy. You can take any great painting and play this kind of game with it. That’s not to say that some painters may not have implanted coded messages in their work. It would be surprising if they didn’t. But you won’t find too many serious art critics giving Brown’s reading of the painting more than a passing smile”

Picture Update! :)

A few pictures from our wedding shower and Amy/Gordan Yang's Wedding. :)

The Da Vinci Code Part 1

Outside of theology books, I don't read very much, in fact, I can't remember the last time I read a novel (I tried reading "The Pilgrim Progress", a year ago but I never finished- I know I am an embarrassment to all who declares to be called "Reformed"). So after 3 weeks, I finally finished my first novel since college, and the book happened to be "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown, which I read in order to prepare FPC with the challenges that will come from the movie, premiering in May.

Well first of all, I did find the book to be riveting and exciting, as I followed the two main characters (Robert and Sophie) on the quest for the Holy Grail, and with it all the secrets of "who Jesus Christ really is". But as the book began to unfold its idea of Jesus (according to Dan Brown), it became clear to me, that this book is and will be very dangerous to the Christian faith because it creates so much suspicion toward the historic Christ, revealed in the Bible

In these series of post, I want to cite some of the book's challenges towards orthodox Christianity, and then supply an answer to them by quoting Bishop (Tom) Wright's, a renowned New Testament scholar, article, "Decoding The Da Vinci Code".*

*http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/summer2k5/features/davincicode.asp

Gospel of Judas

Well yesterday, some scholars revealed the Gospel of Judas and with it the controversial new perspective on Judas. USA Today writes "With a plot twist worthy of The Da Vinci Code, the gospel - 13 papyrus sheets bound in leather and found in a cave in Egypt - purports to relate the last days of Jesus' life, from the viewpoint of Judas, one of Jesus' first followers. Christians teach that Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, but in this gospel, he is the hero, Jesus' most senior and trusted disciple and the only one who knows Jesus' true identity as the son of God. ".

How should FPC react and how we should respond? I don't have the time to address all the issues right now, but this weekend (hopefully), I'll post some answers and resources on how we should think and respond to the "The Da Vinci Code" and all of it's assertion and susipion it creates toward to orthodox view of Christ, which will also help us deal with the Gospel of Judas and other Gnostic Gospels.

For now check out Al Mohler's view of the Gospel of Judas:

http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_list.php



see http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/gospelofjudas/