Musings of a Twisted Mind|Here you will find thoughts on current events, sports, politics, court system, theology, and other things.

Lets take a look at the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ok let’s look at the first part: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In Britian at the time, there was religious tests on who could serve in the government and who could attend universities. If you were not a member of the Church of England you could not do either. And tax money went to the Church of England for their expenses. And in some places, you could find yourself in jail if you were not a member. How did you prove your membership? Attend one communion for the year.

Next is or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; That’s pretty clear. The government has no power over what the person believes or does not believe concerning God. And it cannot prevent someone from worshipping as they see fit because the government doesn’t like it. The government is quite simply to keep its nose out of a person’s religious beliefs.

Third we have or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; The government cannot stop someone or the media from criticizing the government. Frankly that’s the only kind of speech that the government would be afraid of. And thus the government must keep its hands off the person’s views or the media. It cannot pass laws that dictate what people can and cannot say.

Fourth we have or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,People can come together and talk to each other without fear of the government coming and telling them they cannot. At the same time, the assembly has to be peaceful so its not a mob to come together and lynch someone. People are allowed to freely communicate with one another as a group in peace.

Finally, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. We have the right to inform the government when they are doing something wrong. We cannot be thrown in jail for doing it. And we cannot be killed.

So San Diego, do you want to be part of the United States or do you want to be part of China?

Crossway will be releasing the ESV Study Bible on October 15, 2008. This looks like a real winner of a study bible. Based on the limited pdfs I’ve seen, the NIV Study Bible has some competition finally. I just wish they’d offer some samples from the Old Testament instead of just Luke and John.

An earlier date would be better though. After all schools are more likely to switch to the ESV Study Bible if they could see it in July and August and then have the campus bookstores have them in stock at the end of August. I think waiting until October 15 is really making it harder for the ESV Study Bible to make enroads.

Plus I want this study bible now. And if someone at crossway wants to send me a review copy I would be quite pleased to give a more detailed impression of it here.

You can also see the introduction to Luke here

Christianbook.com has this on pre-sale for $29.99. which is $20 off the listed price and I don’t make a dime from giving you this link.

According to Gerald Bray, it is not good to try to find the Trinity in the Old Testament because “To admit belief in the Trinity without belief in Christ would be to confuse irretrievable the logic and purpose of revelation” (141, Doctrine of God). Agree or Disagree?

This was after he described the possibility of Genesis 18 as possible Trinity appearance.

I also found interesting his commentary on the number three being seen as perfection in Greek culture as pointed out by Philo of Alexanderia in his commentary on Genesis 18. And seen again in Clement as allegorical proof of the Trinity but it was abandoned by Calvin during the Reformation as too fanciful.

Today, my pastor made a comment during the sermon that I swear was being directed at the lynching of Presbyman by certain commenters at Ben’s blog. He said, that perception is all that matters in some Conservative circles rather than Truth. If you mispeak one little bit, it doesn’t matter what your intent was, the mob dives in and attacks. He connected it to the Pharisees’ intent in asking Jesus which is the greatest commandment. And also to the current political atmosphere.

As I left church today, I told him about the Presbyman affair and the whole Anti-Christ and Pope and Westminster discussion. And he just shook his head and agreed with me. I’m glad I’m not the only one besides Presbyman that thinks its getting ridiculous.

But I wonder what it was that he was referring to. He’s doing a D-Min and I wonder if it had anything to do with his experience with that.

Is it fair that a blind person cannot conduct a medical operation? Is it fair when a high school dropout is not hired for a position that requires a higher degree? Is it fair when a deaf person is not hired to take dictation?

Its not a question of fairness. Its a question of qualifications.

Someone must be able to see to conduct a medical operation
Someone must have the degree for certain jobs
Someone must be able to hear to take down someone’s words accurately

So why when the qualifications for Biblical ministry are clearly spelled out in Timothy does it suddenly become a question of fairness?

I Timothy 3:1-13

Qualifications for Overseers

1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer£ must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,£ sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Qualifications for Deacons

8Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued,£ not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11Their wives£ likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Titus 1:6-9

Qualifications for Elders

5This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—6if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,£ and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7For an overseer,£ as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound£ doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

• Yet while Holy Scripture is necessary to faith and authoritative in our
  lives, “to lead a life in obedience to Scripture sets the authority of Scripture above the authority of Christ and returns us to life under the law.

No it doesn’t. The Word is from Christ. It is not above his authority. It is his authority.

And we never were out from under the law. We are to live according to the Law as best we can. We fail. But through the merciful gift of God, believers are forgiven for their sins. Not one letter from the law has been removed by Christ and it is the Law which believers are to follow as their conscience. And they are to be repentant when they fail to follow the law.

What does it mean to be repentant? It means you recognize that you were in the wrong. You do not try to justify your actions. You do not try to make it ok. You condemn your action and you attempt to stop your sinful nature. You do not relish it. You do not center your life around it. You do not continue to live in sin on purpose. You try to change your behavior to follow the Law of God which is the Law of Christ.

The typical order of Worship on Sunday:

I. Entering the Presence of God

• A. Call to Worship
  B. Songs of Praise
  C. Prayer of Confession
  D. Assurance of Pardon
  E. Psalter Response
  F. Hymn of Praise

II. Hearing God’s Word to us

• A. Old Testament Lesson
  B. Epistles Lesson
  C. Gospel Lesson
  D. Sermon

III. The People’s Response

• A. Hymn of Response
  B. Confession of Faith
  C. Prayers of the People
  D. Offerings
  E. Closing Hymn

Doesn’t evangelism use the same structure?
I. Call and Convict the person of their sins
II. Teach them the Grace of God and the Gift of Salvation
III. Hopefully their response to the Gospel of Grace positive and they are welcomed into the people of God.

The Regulative Prince is

• whatever is not commanded is forbidden

Now I would say it should be “whatever is commanded is necessary and what is not commanded is forbidden” but thats not what this post is about. What it is about is John Frame has a different view on its implications.

• Is buying cabbage really adiaphoron, morally indifferent? I would say no. Buying cabbage, like all human actions, is a matter of concern to God. He says, “Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). This command, like those in Rom 14:23, Col 3:17, 24, and elsewhere, is absolutely general. It covers all human activities, including buying cabbage. If we buy cabbage to the glory of God, he is pleased; if we do not, he is not. The act is not morally indifferent or neutral; it is either good or bad, depending on its goal and motive. Therefore, in an important sense, there are no adiaphora; there is no human act that is morally neutral.7 Every human act is either right or wrong, either pleasing or displeasing to God.

  This means that all human actions are ruled by divine commandments. There is no neutral area where God permits us to be our own lawgivers. There is no area of human life where God abdicates his rule, or where his word to us is silent. What law governs the buying of cabbage? Well, 1 Cor 10:31 at least, not to mention narrower biblical principles requiring parents to nourish their children, to guard the health of themselves and others, etc. Actions in accord with these biblical principles are right, actions not in accord with them are wrong. It is not a matter of merely avoiding explicit prohibitions; rather it is a matter of keeping the commands of God.

  And thus I would conclude that all human life is under RP1, and RP2 plays no role in biblical ethics.8 In every action, we are either obeying or disobeying a biblical command.

Now the RP2 is the Lutheran model:

• “whatever is not forbidden is permitted

So if all of life is to be governed by the Regulative Principle, one would have to figure out several defenses. For instance:

Using computers
Using automobiles
Spending time on the internet
Plowing fields with machinery
Using machinery for that matter
Watching Television
Campaigning for an office
Spending a single second in some mindless entertainment like a movie or video games

Now Frame may actually take away this requirement because he goes on to say:

• Does this mean that God commands me to buy a particular cabbage at the store? No. God commands me to glorify him, etc., and buying the cabbage is a “mode,” a “way” of fulfilling that commandment. I could, perhaps, have fulfilled it in many other ways. Strict as it is, RP1 allows, both in worship (as we have seen) and in the rest of life, some freedom of application. Here again, there is no real difference between worship and the rest of life. In both cases, the three qualifications listed earlier must be taken into account: (a) we determine our responsibilities not only on the basis of explicit proof texts, but also on the basis of “good and necessary consequence”; (b) there are some “circumstances” not specifically mentioned in Scripture which we seek to arrange wisely, in accord with the broader principles of the word; and (c) Scripture grants us much (though not unlimited) freedom in the ways we carry out divine commands.

With that, I would say the requirement of defenses falls to only:
Watching TV
Spending Time on the INternet
And Spending time with other entertainments
Plus whatever things I didn’t think of in the few seconds I spent thinking up stuff that match the new criteria

For instance can playing a video game like for instance Halo glorify God? I suppose one could evangelize while playing it. But doing that while shooting other players seems a bit of a stretch. But I suppose Evangelism could be used for doing any of those things.

Of course there is the question of where is the line between following rules and legalism? And what about Christian Liberty as defined in 1 Corinthians?

The first woman I want to talk about is Tamar, a Canaanite. She was married to the son of Judah who died. By Israelite custom, Judah’s next son should marry her so that she can produce a son. He wouldn’t go through with the custom and was killed by God for it. So it fell to Judah’s youngest son who was but a boy. Judah claimed he was to young and that he would marry her when he gets older. As the years passed, it became clear to Tamar that she was going to stood up at the altar so she pretended to be a temple prostitute(she hid behind a veil) and slept with Judah after securing notable items as collateral. Her one night stand with Judah caused her to become pregnant. Judah was not happy since she was supposed to be his family and now she went outside the family and got pregnant. He demanded to know who and she produced his items which embarrassed Judah greatly. (Genesis 38)

The second is Rahab. She was the prostitute that the spies of Joshua ran into when they were spying on Jericho. She hid them when the city guards began searching for them. In exchange for her help, she and her family and possessions were spared when the city fell. She was welcomed into the Israelite society. (Joshua 2,5:13-ff)

The third is Ruth. Ruth was a Moabite woman who married the son of a Judien: Elimelech. Now as an aside Elimelech means in Hebrew My God is King. Now Elimelech died leaving a widow in Naomi but she had two sons:Mahlon & Kilion who could take care of her. One of these sons was the husband of Ruth and the other son married another Moabite woman named Orpah. After ten years, both sons died leaving Naomi with her two daughter in laws. She told them both to go back to their families and that she was going back to Judah. Orpah did as she suggested but Ruth refused. She would not allow her mother in law to be all alone and she went back to Judah with her. Where she was soon married to a kinsman of Naomi named Boaz. (The Book of Ruth)

The forth woman is Bathsheba. Bathsheba was a beautiful woman and wife of the loyal soldier Urriah, a Hittite. Now Urriah was away fighting for King David under the command of Joab but David was in Jerusalem and was looking out from his window and he saw Bathsheba and his lusts came to the forefront and he sent word to her to come to room. Which she did and he slept with her and then sent her away. She sent word that she was pregnant and this caused a panic in the throneroom of David. He sent word to Joab to send Urriah back to Jerusalem. When he arrived, David asked him about the battles and after the pleasantries were over he suggested Urriah go home and be with his wife. Urriah did not because he was refraining himself during this holy war. So David tried to get him drunk so that he would sleep with Bathsheba but he still remained away from his wife. So David sent him back with sealed orders. He was to be “accidentally” killed in battle and so Urriah was killed. Now it was later found out because Nathan the Prophet confronted David about this.

So why are these four Old Testament women important and why are they singled out and named? Because if you turn to Matthew 1, you will see that all four women are in the genealogy of Christ. Two Canaanites, a Moabite, and a possible Hittite. And the first three were in the genealogy of David.

I’m looking at a passage across Bible translations: Hosea 11:5

NIV: Will they not return to Egypt and will not Assyria rule over them because they refuse to repent?

ESV: They shall not return to the land of Egypt, but Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me.

TNIV: “Will they not return to Egypt and will not Assyria rule over them because they refuse to repent?

NRSV: They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me.

RSV: They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me.

ASV: They shall not return into the land of Egypt; but the Assyrian shall be their king, because they refused to return to me.

Now, when you look at the Hebrew, it begins with a Lo which is the Hebrew word for no or not. So the NRSV and the RSV are thrown out right there.

And the first verb is Yashoov which is a third masculine singular verb for return or turn. That’s he or it. Not they. That just throws out all the remaining translations. The verse actually appears to translate to me as

He/It will not return to the land of Egypt but Assyria will rule him/it because he/it turned from me.

But I sit here scratching my head on where all these translations are getting a third common plural translation. And wondering if I’m mistaken…