July 11, 2009

John Calvin's 500th birthday

What did I do to celebrate John Calvin's birthday yesterday? Nothing except post this picture of him on the blog today. But I should do something original, shouldn't I?

Perhaps I'll celebrate by reading a chapter from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion? No, that's been done before.

Perhaps I'll celebrate by hanging a picture of him in my church office? No, some even have his picture hanging in their washrooms already.

Perhaps I'll celebrate by praying for him? No, some have prayed for his life and even his death centuries earlier.

Perhaps I'll celebrate by naming my next child after him? Calvin Sam? No, it doesn't have a good ring to it.

I think I'll just admire this picture for a second and that'll be it.

Reconciling evolutionism-creationism with infallibility and inspiration of scripture

Blogger Jeremy Pierce at Parableman recently posted Francis Collins and Intelligent Design about five different views in the spectrum of creationism-evolutionism. Jeremy Pierce is a blogger who has interesting things to say about social-political-biblical issues.

As a Christian, where do you stand within this spectrum of creationism-evolutionism views?

1. Atheistic evolution: Everything we experience is best explained by naturalistic explanations such as natural selection and random chance, with no guidance from an intelligent being.

2. Naturalistic-like theistic evolution: Natural selection and what appears to be random chance constitute the best scientific account of human origins, but God intelligently guided the process along by setting up the laws of nature so that they would lead to human development.

3. Non-naturalistic theistic evolution: Natural selection and the mechanisms of the standard evolutionary account are correct in postulating human origins from common descent with other animals, but God intelligently guided the process along by intervening in the natural order.

4. Special creation (old-earth): Divine intervention occurred to create human beings at a certain time in history without humans having descended from other animals. Nevertheless, this took place in the general time scheme scientists accept for when humans first appeared, and the universe and the earth are as old as our best science generally takes them to be.

5. Special creation (young-earth): Divine intervention occurred to create human beings at a certain time in history without humans having descended from other animals. This happened during the one exact week that God used to create the universe and all life on earth, with humans appearing on the sixth day of that week.
I commented that:
I've struggled in bouncing back and forth between views # 2-4. I still find these 3 views plausible within the confines of inspiration and infallibility of scripture, which are things I don't want to forsake. But I find that with view #2 I have a tough time reconciling with the infallibility of Scripture. I don't know.

July 9, 2009

Ephesians 1:4-5 – Whose love are we talking about? Our love or God's love?

In Ephesians 1:4-5, whose love is the writer of Ephesians talking about -- the love in God's child or the love of God? Notice that εν αγαπη (en agape) in the Greek NT is located at the end of v.4; however, en agape could also be placed at the start of a new sentence in v.5, which would render a different meaning in the text. "Love" is stuck in the middle between v.4 and v.5. The various translations also take positions right down the middle. The NRSV, NASB, NKJV, NJB and REB locate love (en agape) at the end of v.4 so that love is understood as an attribute within the child of God. Love modifies holiness and blamelessness. Whereas, the ESV, RSV, TNIV, NAB, GNT and HCSB locates love (en agape) at the beginning of v.5; so then, love is understood as an attribute of God’s own character (i.e., "in love [God] predestined us"). As a result, these translations are understood as two differing ideas. It can be a major difference, not a minor one and it completely changes how the passage is understood by the reader. (Note, NLT also locates love in v.4 but love modifies the word "chosen" so it's meaning is understood almost the same as TNIV and ESV). [This post has been edited.]
______________________
Ephesians 1:4-5:

4 καθως εξελεξατο ημας εν αυτω προ καταβολης κοσμου ειναι ημας αγιους και αμωμους κατενωπιον αυτου εν αγαπη

5 προορισας ημας εις υιοθεσιαν δια ιησου χριστου εις αυτον κατα την ευδοκιαν του θεληματος αυτου (Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland 27th edition)

...even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (ESV)

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—(TNIV)

Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure. (NLT)

just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, (NRSV)

Before the foundation of the world he chose us in Christ to be his people, to be without blemish in his sight, to be full of love; and he predestined us to be adopted as his children through Jesus Christ. This was his will and pleasure (REB)

July 8, 2009

ESV Study Bible: a Reformed study bible?

This Sunday, I plan to preach on the text of Ephesians 1:3-14. I noticed that, in particular, vv. 3, 4 and 11 are verses about predestination. I compared this passage in the ESV translation with other translations and did not find that the ESV had any bent toward predestination. Then I looked further and could not find any passage where the ESV was biased toward Reformed teaching of predestination. If the ESV bible could be accused of having a bent toward Reformed theology, it would have to be some of the notes in the ESV Study Bible.

I looked up some of the verses most commonly used by Arminians to challenge the doctrine of predestination. In it, the study notes in the ESV Study Bible, to a large extent, does defend the doctrine of predestination. But the study notes do not only defend Reformed theology since its contributors come from various denominations including some from non-Reformed backgrounds (e.g., pentecostal, evangelical, Southern Baptist, Lutherans). No, I'm not saying that the ESV Study Bible is a Reformed study bible. It is clearly not. But if the ESV Study Bible were to be labelled as a Reformed study bible, I don't think many in the Reformed camp would object this label? But if it were labelled as such, it definitely wouldn't be able to sell as well as it has.
________________________________

1 Timothy 2:3-4 “who desires all people to be saved”
“This statement figures prominently in theological disagreements over the extent of the atonement. It cannot be read as suggesting that everyone will be saved (universalism) because the rest of the letter makes it clear that some will not be saved”

2 Peter 3:9not wishing that any should perish
“see note in 1 Tim 2:4”

Romans 14:15 “do not destroy the one for whom Christ died”
“beware lest they destroy the faith of a brother or sister”

1 Corinthians 8:11 “by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died”
“Others see this as a reference to the moral harm done to the weaker brother (his conscience “is defiled,””

Hebrews 10:26-27 “a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries”
“…if there is no evidence of fruit in one's life, to challenge such people to give fearful consideration as to whether they are in fact genuine believers.”

2 Peter 2:1 “even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction”
“they claimed to be “redeemed” and “saved” because they were part of the church, but their apostasy showed that they were not truly believers.”

John 4:42 “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men
“the first “all men” refers to all who are in Adam (every human being), while the second “all men” refers to all believers, to all who are “in Christ.””

Romans 5:18
2 Corinthians 5:14-15
1 John 2:2

July 6, 2009

Logos giving away 72 bibles

I thought you all might like to know about this bible giveaway. I've entered for a free bible.

Logos Bible Software is celebrating the launch of their new online Bible by giving away 72 ultra-premium print Bibles at a rate of 12 per month for six months. The Bible giveaway is being held at Bible.Logos.com and you can get up to five different entries each month! After you enter, be sure to check out Logos and see how it can revolutionize your Bible study.

July 2, 2009

Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace? by James M. Boice

Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace: Discovering the Doctrines that Shook the World
Author: James Montgomery Boice
Publisher: Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009.
ISBN: 9781433509629

Thanks to Crossway for this review copy.

This book calls the evangelical churches to return to its origins; that is, a return to the doctrines of the five solas: scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, and glory to God alone. Author, James M. Boice, who was senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia for 30 years brings the reader a well-thought through analysis of the church’s need to return to the doctrines that made the church what it was.

His critique of the current state of the evangelical church can be sharp but it is warranted, given the state of the church. This book is like a prophetic cry calling the evangelical church to not be conformed to the pattern of this age but to be transformed by a renewal. Boice claims that evangelical churches have taken the misguided path of humanism, relativism, materialism, pragmatism, and mindlessness.

I am not sure if the entire evangelical church is in the sad state that Boice has described but I do agree with his assessment that describes parts of the evangelical church. His claims against the evangelical church is that it no longer believes the bible is adequate to meet the challenges of today.

His example is our need to develop lobby groups and elect Christian legislators to fulfill our need for power politics and money. In this sense, the evangelical church has also become like secular society and has followed the path of Christians who herald from established mainline churches. I feel that a more accurate diagnosis is that evangelicals have sought political power and money to effect more influence on the world around us. Why? Is it for the sake of power and money? No, I do not think so but I think this need arises from the feeling that evangelicals have not been effective in changing the world for Christ. Does this mean that we are in the beginning stages of the coming evangelical crisis? Not necessarily. Much of the church during the founding of the colonial nation had many people of Christian faith in political office. In fact, that was the norm. Personally, I think this is a good thing--even for today.

Contrary to Boice, I do not think there is anything wrong with this because, as Christians, we are called to be salt and light in a dark world. I agree with Boice in that we have put our trust and hope in power, wealth and influence. The emptiness in politics, and even the idolatry of religion and ecclesiastical power, are both equally temporary and fleeting when it is understood from a perspective in which we are depraved and separated from God. Christian leaders in every vocation are prone to falling into the trap of human sinfulness, and yes, including our seemingly faithful pastors, deacons, and church leaders.

Do we need faithful legislators, doctors, lawyers, teachers, truck drivers and local business owners? Yes, we do. My argument is that we make the mistake of putting our faith, trust and hope in them. Our own work in this world is open to corruption and human sinfulness. Boice says that:

The Good News is that sin has been dealt with, that Jesus has suffered its penalty for us as our representative, and that all who believe in him can look forward confidently to heaven. Any ‘gospel’ that talks merely about the Christ-event, meaning the Incarnation without the Atonement, is a false gospel. Any gospel that talks about the love of God without showing that love led him to pay the ultimate price for sin in the person of his Son on the Cross, is a false gospel. The only true gospel is the gospel of the ‘one mediator’ who gave himself for us (1 Tim. 2:5,6). If our churches are not preaching this gospel, they are not preaching the gospel at all, and if they are not preaching the gospel, they are not true churches . Evangelicalism desperately needs to rediscover its roots and recover its essential biblical bearing at this point.” (p.105).
We must become more self-aware of our misplaced trust in our humanistic tendencies, which get played out in our self-esteem gospel, the health and wealth gospel, felt-need sermons or entertainment or ‘signs and wonders’. Moreover, our misguided humanism apart from God has led us to follow the wisdom, agendas, method and theology prevalent in our secular age. We have become humanistic, relativistic, and pragmatic, materialistic and this very visible in the way we do church. The author of this book says we see it in our church growth and building programs, and in our efforts toward defeating world hunger, racism, and ecology. This really hurts but I think it’s good prophetic medicine for a church that is sick.

Christ calls the church to repent and return to the Cross of Christ (or theology of the Cross). As the Holy Spirit of God opens our eyes, we may begin to see the offense of the cross and return to an understanding of why we need the cross. This is true Christianity, and without it, we are not being the true church. The author has challenged me to be true to Christ’s calling. This book will challenge you to think more deeply about one’s theology but the author has said more than what I have written here. It will challenge you to become more aware of our need for Christ and call you to the solas of the Reformation: sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”), sola gratia (“grace alone”), sola fide (“faith alone”), solus Christus (“Christ alone”), and soli Deo Gloria (“glory to God alone”). May all glory be to God alone.

Officiating my first funeral--it can be a challenge

I will be officiating my first funeral and will deliver a short sermon to the family and friends of a deceased woman. I’m struggling a little about how and what to say because I did not know the person and did not know what her faith walk was like while she was alive. To know for certain whether she had faith or none at all would be easier. Not knowing seems to make it more difficult. The risk is that I might over-attribute or under-attribute her faith in the Lord. If I over-attribute, I would be saying too much. If I under-attribute, I would be saying too little. Maybe I should say nothing of her faith at all and just preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to her family and friends? Yes, I think I will do just that.

Regarding a similar issue of funerals, this week, I couldn’t help wonder what I would do if I had to officiate and preach a sermon at the funeral of the late Michael Jackson [I don't know why I'm still talking about this guy. Maybe he's more significant to me than I thought?]. Did he have any faith in Jesus at all? Did he truly convert to Islam, or what was the religion the tabloids said he adhere to…I do not really know. Would I be able to say that he “has been reunited with Christ and his heavenly Father”? If I’m not sure about that, I would be doing a disservice to his family by giving them a false hope, or to say that he’s on his way to heaven or to hell would not be right. Only God knows what happened to his soul. Boy, I’m glad I’m not officiating the funeral for Michael Jackson.

June 25, 2009

Making one-sided prayers

The most significant current events around the world include the situation happening in Iran. The political unrest amongst the people is creating civil chaos that has become quite violent. There is injustice. There is blatant dishonesty in the current government. But I forgot to pray for the people in Iran. My question is: “Is it okay to pray for political issues like the political unrest in Iran?” Some churches feel it is okay to pray for one side of the issue but this is risky. If we’re careful we probably should not pray for or against one side because we do not have any hard evidence and information regarding how the election was handled in Iran. Should we Christians take sides and pray for one government over another? I think it’s better to be careful and refrain from making public prayers for one side or another because we might have wrong information. Personally, I don’t trust all our public information and news from television or even our newspapers. Even President Obama is being more careful about his public comments and isn’t making any one-sided opinions about this issue. However, I think the one thing we can pray for is for peace and for the truth to be revealed.

Where were you when you heard Michael Jackson died?

I do not know why this story is important enough to bring me back to blogging but it is. Where were you when you heard that Michael Jackson had died? As I was returning home today on Highway #44 from a visit with parishioners this late afternoon, I turned on the radio in the car and tuned into news radio. I was stunned and felt a loss inside. The older generation will remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they received the news when JFK was shot in Texas and had died. And just as people will remember exactly where they were when the Twin Towers tumbled in NYC, I will remember where I was when I heard that Michael Jackson suddenly died.

For some, Michael Jackson’s death has little significance, but for me, he was a real huge icon in my era. Yes, I do feel kind of sad and feel a part of me has died today. Why? Maybe it’s because, as a kid, I learned how to moonwalk from watching Michael Jackson videos of Thriller…. maybe it’s because I remember listening to hits like Thriller, Beat it, Billie Jean, Say Say Say, etc. Yes, I admit I was a fan of him when he was at his peak of pop stardom. I liked his music, his dancing and his originality. Regardless of the bad stuff that happened in the latter stages of his life, he will be remembered by millions of people around the world who liked his music. My thoughts and prayers are with him and may God be with his family members.

June 2, 2009

Just getting settled in and will be back to blogging

Okay, I've had my holiday time and still feel like staying away from blogging for a while because life is more simpler but also more complicated too. Adjusting to new life in a new town and getting use to new people can be stressful. Any kind of change adds stress to life so I've tried to move slowly into this new phase of my life.

I also noticed I have nearly 900 unread posts in my google reader and I'm catching up to what everyone has been blogging about. I really like what I've seen in everyone's blogs. I'll be reading your blogs and some books too. Right now I'm content just reading what you're all blogging about. I'll be back to blogging some time soon.

May 1, 2009

Now it's official, I've been ordained

On Sunday, April 26, 2009, I was ordained as a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. Now, I am authorized to administer Word and Sacraments. This took place at my home congregation of Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church in Saskatoon, SK Canada. I will be taking a call in a small rural parish in Davidson and Loreburn, SK.

Immediately after my ordination, a seminary classmate posed a light-hearted but interesting question to me. He asked: "Was there an ontological change after ordination?" Theologically-speaking, I don't think so...or at least I didn't feel any different after being ordained. Roman Catholic theology speak of an ontological change effective at the sacrament of ordination but Lutherans and Anglicans do not see ordination as a sacrament or see the pastor any different before one was ordained. Calvin and Luther saw that the only thing different is that one is called to a task that is set apart from that of the lay person.

Is "once a priest, always a priest?" Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 5:6 says: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." However, this refers to Jesus himself

Peter says: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession..." (1 Peter 2:9, TNIV). This verse refers to God's holy people.

Hebrews also refers to Jesus as the great high priest, but to also to an earthly high priest in Hebrews 4:14 - 5:10. "Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" (Heb. 5:1, TNIV).

So who can be a priest? Do we only have one priest in Jesus, or can we have many priest, as in the priesthood of all believers? Can ordination make one a priest before God?

(Note: The larger photo is of the bishop of my synod, and of my parents, wife and daughter. The small group photo of the pastors and classmates has been reduced in order to keep their anonymity. It's a tradition to pose for a large clergy group photo after ordination.)

April 21, 2009

My ordination and convocation

The next few weeks will mark some very important milestone in my life. My graduation/convocation from seminary will be on May 8, 2009. Since the end of 2008, I completed all my seminary classes. By God’s providence, I was blessed with the opportunity to serve as a pastoral assistant on a half-time basis at my home congregation. In the mean time, I have been awaiting a call to serve as a full-time ordained minister of the gospel, and now, the time has come.

I have been offered a Letter of Call to shepherd two small rural congregations. This Sunday, on April 26th, I will be ordained as a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada; and I will have an official title of Reverend Kevin Sam. It's hard to believe after all this time. I will also be busy packing, moving, and getting settled into a new place in the next several weeks. This means I’ll have less time for blogging in the next little while so don’t expect many posts but I will be back at my normal pace after I get settled. Peace and blessings to all my friends and readers of this blog.

April 19, 2009

Preserving Democracy by Elgin Hushbeck Jr.

Preserving Democracy
Author: Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.
Publisher: Gonzalez, FL: Energion Publications, 2009
ISBN: 978-1893729537 (hardcover)

Recently, I have been doing more reading than blogging, and I am enjoying it. I have just finished reading a new book, Preserving Democracy, written by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. It is published by a small but growing publisher, Energion Publications, and I wish to thank the publisher, Mr. Henry Neufeld, for a copy of this advanced edition.

I am a fan of the the U.S. Constitution because the Founding Fathers who designed the U.S. Constitution constructed the finest constitutional document, probably in the history of the world. To those who are critical of the United States, its ideals and its problems, I probably sound like I have been totally taken in or doofed by American propaganda (Note: I can say this because I am Canadian...and some of you know what it means to be Canadian). But to those who understand the history of the United States and who have read what James Madison and Alexander Hamilton reported in the Federalist Papers, one will appreciate the genius behind the framers of the Constitution. This document has become the model for many other national constitutions around the world. Americans should be very proud of the U.S. Constitution. If it wasn't a great document and so intelligently put together, I highly doubt it would be held in such high regard by so many other nations.

Yes, America has not been perfect, and it still isn't. Critics of the great American democratic experiment will be quick to point out the history of slavery and poverty; but this has existed in the histories of every country and I do not intend to condone any wrongs. However, I must ask: Is there any other country on earth where it has opened its doors to so many immigrants where so many have found freedom, equality and the liberty to pursue happiness, prosperity, and religious freedom?

In this book, the author defends the American democratic ideals. Hushbeck knows and understands the history of this nation from its Christian roots. He has helped to enlighten my eyes to what Thomas Jefferson really meant when he wrote to a Baptist group in Danbury, Conn.:

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State" (p.91).
Jefferson said this not to establish freedom from religion, but to establish freedom for religion. Today, the courts have twisted and corrupted the honorable intention of Jefferson such that many use this to mean that any public institution must be secular. This cannot be further from the truth. Anyone who doubts this piece of American history should read further into American history. Hushbeck has drawn his information from many sources and is well-informed about the history of the American Founding Fathers. I doubt that many history teachers know about this part of American history because many universities teach American history from a purely secularized perspective and is devoid of true "His-Story." This is sad.

True freedom can only be experienced within the confines and protection of the Rule of Law, and when the laws of the law promote justice and equality. Freedom is not anarchy, nor do I believe it is libertarianism. Americans should never take freedom for granted because it is, and still remains, one of the freest countries on the face of the earth. It is so because of respect for Rule of Law. It is Rule of Law, and not laws, that give people protection and security under the law. However, these freedoms are being eroded today. I really like what Hushbeck says in the chapter on The Rule of Law. He defines what this concept is.
"The Rule of Law is not law. Laws have been around since before recorded history…. While laws are the rules of conduct of a society that are backed up by the authority of the state; the Rule of Law is a concept that deals with how law itself is to be understood and more importantly to whom it is applied. In its simplest form, the Rule of Law can be summed up in the statement: No one is above the law, not even the ruler” (p. 80-81).
In dictatorships, nations under Mao, Stalin or Hitler did not have Rule of Law because they dictated what the law should be according to how it best benefited them. This still happens today under tribal leadership and dictatorship, and it is abuse. However, they would not consider it abuse because they do not have a true understanding of Rule of Law.

What is truly important about Rule of Law is that it provides a basis for true democratic government. The author used an example of Saddam Hussein who acted as though he was above the law. He changed the way elections were conducted at his own whim. Therefore, democracy never actually existed under Hussein. This sort of thing still happens in other countries today. In false democracies, posed as democracies, their practices are underhanded, or even unashamedly open-handedly but corrupt.

Hushbeck says that the American democratic republic could fail if the U.S. Supreme Court continues in it dangerous trend of where court justices set dangerous precedents to define how new laws should be applied. Judges who see the Constitution as a fixed standard treat the Constitution as if it is a “living document” in the sense that it “can grow and be expanded to meet the needs of an ever-changing society.” Should it be able to be expanded? Should the American people ever change the Constitution? I mean, should one fix what is not broken? Some feel that rather than fixing it, it would be easier to reinterpret what it says. When judges base their ruling on their own personal views as to what is important or what ought to be, it can set a dangerous precedent; and it has. “In short, it makes the judge more of a ruler than a judge,” says Hushbeck. Undoubtedly, this weakens the public confidence in the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and respect for the laws of the land. It also allows for injustice.

There is so much more to say about this book that I would need more room and time to say it. If you have an interest in American history, the richness of American heritage, and are concerned about the state of the nation today, you should read Preserving Democracy. This book has just been released on April 15, 2009 and is now available for pre-purchase at Energion Publications and on Amazon.com. I am very glad to have read this informative and well-written book. Thanks.