Some of you may have been wondering where the heck I am. I have been concentrating quite heavily on an eschatology paper that I am writing regarding my own personal views. It is one of the hardest papers I have ever had to write. I am learning much about the Bible and even about myself. I’ve had to quite extensive research on covenant theology and I am working on some deep research regarding dispensationalism. I will post the paper when I am complete, but until then, here is a little taste regarding covenant theology.
Covenant theology does not accept such a literal view of Scripture. Webster’s defines “covenant” as “1 : a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement : 2 a : a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action b : the common-law action to recover damages for breach of such a contract.”2 It sees history as through one covenant, the Covenant of Grace. This overriding covenant is derived from several other covenants (or sub-covenants to the Covenant of Grace). These covenants include the Edenic Covenant (Genesis 2:15-17), Adamic Covenant (Genesis 3:14-19), the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3), the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9), the Mosaic Covenant (Genesis 17:1-27), the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7), and finally the New Covenant. Each covenant builds upon the preceding one culminating with the New Covenant fully realized in the death and ressurection of Christ. For instance, in the Edenic Covenant, Adam and Eve are given the entire garden with the exception of the one tree. However, Eve disobeyed and then also Adam. After this, in the Adamic Covenant, women would experience pain in childbirth and man would have to work for food among other things. Also, the proto evangelium or “first gospel”3 was uttered promising a seed to restore the Edenic Covenant.
The Noahic Covenant is a covenant that God made with Noah and his descendents. According to a website, “According to the conditions of this covenant, G-d promised never to flood the earth again the rainbow(Gen. 9:11-15). The nations/Gentiles were given animal life as food(Gen. 9:2-3); forbidden to eat blood or flesh from a living animal (Gen. 9:4); forbidden to murder(Gen. 9:5-6); required to administer justice in accordance with G-d's Law (Gen. 9:5-6);and required to procreate(Gen 9:1, 7).”4
The terms of the Abrahamic Covenant are found in Genesis 17:1-27. The same website says, “This covenant is an ‘everlasting covenant’ (Gen.17:7,13,19), is for all generations of Jews(Gen.17:7, 9,13,19) and is not nullified by later covenants (Gal.3:15-17). According to the conditions of this covenant; every male must be circumcised on the eighth day (Gen.17:10-14); G-d would make a multitude of nations from Abraham (Gen.17:4-6); G-d would have a special relationship with Israel (Gen.17:7-8); and G-d would give Israel the Land of Canaan (Gen.17:8).”5
The Mosaic Covenant (or Covenants, depending on how it is viewed) was given in two stages. The first was at Mt. Sinai and the second was in Moab. This covenant is what we would call “the law” and its conditions can be found it the Torah. In the Davidic Covenant, the throne of David is promised to endure forever. As you can see, each covenant builds upon the one before it and all are rich with messianic overtones. In particular, the Abrahamic covenant is unique because God promises posterity, land, and a blessing for the nations. Not only this, but the writer of Hebrews and Paul, in his epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans, explained that believers were the seed of Abraham.6 Because of the way this is viewed by covenant theology, there is only one people of God. The saints of the Old Testament and the Saints of the New Testament are both the people of God. Thus, the Church is the spiritual Israel. However, the promise of land is not to be viewed as literal for Christians, but rather a symbol of a new country.7
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
The Fleece In Front of God
I made an interesting decision a few weeks ago. I am constantly having to reevaluate my priorities. They are firmly set, mind you, but in the case where one priority feeds the other, the line often becomes blurred.
For example, my priorities are from most important to last: God, family, church, work. My priority is to first be in God’s will by serving Him. If you asked me what God’s will for my life is right now I would tell you that it is to finish school. My second priority is to my family, most importantly, my wife. This has become increasingly important lately because of her illness. My third is to my church. Since we have just recently become more involved in church and are still getting our feet wet, this one has been on the backburner recently. My last is work, a job which I loathe, but have to do to provide for the other three top priorities.
Because of this loathing, I have often prayed that God open a door for me regarding employment, but realized that a job with the benefits that I have does not come along very much. The job is actually a very good one; I have just outgrown it and I see no room for advancement any time soon. However, my wife has been sick and we really need the insurance, so I have stuck with the job. I made the hard decision that if a class came along that would allow me to take it, that I would not sacrifice my job on that altar. Family came before school and as much as I hated it, work facilitated me taking care of my family. I thought that I might be lucky to have one class offered that I could take, at the most two. I was quite shocked last night to realize that there were three! Two of them I can take at night; the other is during the day. On my ride home, I tried to think of every scenario that I could that would allow me to keep my job at the credit union and take all three classes. Considering that a normal semester goes four months and the spring and summer classes are only two and a half months, taking three classes would easily be the equilvalent of full-time school. An inflexible full-time work schedule and full-time school do not really mix, plus if I attempted it, it would probably killed me.
So I did what every responsible man should do: I prayed. Psalm 37:4 says, “Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.” I do not think that the point of that passage is that God will give you that new car you want so badly, but that if you delight in Him, He will give you what your desires are or He will change those desires. The question that I must ask is if my desire to complete school faster is a desire of God or a desire of my flesh.
In Judges 6:36-38, we read, “Gideon said to God, ‘If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised- 37 look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said.’38 And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew-a bowlful of water.” Gideon placed a fleece in front of God and said in a nutshell, “I want to know your will.” Now, I am not saying that I recommend this for everyone. For instance, if you tell God that Mary is the one for you if she wears a polka-dotted dress to work the next day and she does, that does not necessarily mean that God is telling you to marry her. God actually warns us several times in Scripture for us not to test Him. But when a natural fleece is layed in front of God by circumstances, God wants you to trust Him for His will. In my situation, a fleece in the form of a deadline has been placed in front of me. If there is not a way for me to take this class before May 10th, then I know that God has chosen to teach me a valuable lesson about priorities. If He does choose to remove me from my current situation and provide for me a way to take this class, then I know that God has chosen to reveal Himself to me in an absolutely supernatural way. Either way, the command to trust Him looms large in front of me and I have the privilege of waiting to see what He will show me.
I made an interesting decision a few weeks ago. I am constantly having to reevaluate my priorities. They are firmly set, mind you, but in the case where one priority feeds the other, the line often becomes blurred.
For example, my priorities are from most important to last: God, family, church, work. My priority is to first be in God’s will by serving Him. If you asked me what God’s will for my life is right now I would tell you that it is to finish school. My second priority is to my family, most importantly, my wife. This has become increasingly important lately because of her illness. My third is to my church. Since we have just recently become more involved in church and are still getting our feet wet, this one has been on the backburner recently. My last is work, a job which I loathe, but have to do to provide for the other three top priorities.
Because of this loathing, I have often prayed that God open a door for me regarding employment, but realized that a job with the benefits that I have does not come along very much. The job is actually a very good one; I have just outgrown it and I see no room for advancement any time soon. However, my wife has been sick and we really need the insurance, so I have stuck with the job. I made the hard decision that if a class came along that would allow me to take it, that I would not sacrifice my job on that altar. Family came before school and as much as I hated it, work facilitated me taking care of my family. I thought that I might be lucky to have one class offered that I could take, at the most two. I was quite shocked last night to realize that there were three! Two of them I can take at night; the other is during the day. On my ride home, I tried to think of every scenario that I could that would allow me to keep my job at the credit union and take all three classes. Considering that a normal semester goes four months and the spring and summer classes are only two and a half months, taking three classes would easily be the equilvalent of full-time school. An inflexible full-time work schedule and full-time school do not really mix, plus if I attempted it, it would probably killed me.
So I did what every responsible man should do: I prayed. Psalm 37:4 says, “Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.” I do not think that the point of that passage is that God will give you that new car you want so badly, but that if you delight in Him, He will give you what your desires are or He will change those desires. The question that I must ask is if my desire to complete school faster is a desire of God or a desire of my flesh.
In Judges 6:36-38, we read, “Gideon said to God, ‘If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised- 37 look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said.’38 And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew-a bowlful of water.” Gideon placed a fleece in front of God and said in a nutshell, “I want to know your will.” Now, I am not saying that I recommend this for everyone. For instance, if you tell God that Mary is the one for you if she wears a polka-dotted dress to work the next day and she does, that does not necessarily mean that God is telling you to marry her. God actually warns us several times in Scripture for us not to test Him. But when a natural fleece is layed in front of God by circumstances, God wants you to trust Him for His will. In my situation, a fleece in the form of a deadline has been placed in front of me. If there is not a way for me to take this class before May 10th, then I know that God has chosen to teach me a valuable lesson about priorities. If He does choose to remove me from my current situation and provide for me a way to take this class, then I know that God has chosen to reveal Himself to me in an absolutely supernatural way. Either way, the command to trust Him looms large in front of me and I have the privilege of waiting to see what He will show me.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Friday, March 19, 2004
Today is the first anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq, which in reality was an extension on the war on terrorism. I started out being very cynical of this. I wrote this first piece called “Rant” below because of my initial feelings about the war. Here it is:
I don’t mean to go on a rant here, (who does that sound like), but I need to say something about this “War on Terrorism.” What happened to our country on September 11, 2001 was horrible and despicable. Our subsequent war on terrorism in Afghanistan was not only justified, it was just plain right. However, with our current situation in Iraq, I have doubts.
Let me clear something up first. I am a Republican. I voted for Bush. I think Al Gore as a socialist idiot who was no better than Clinton. I supported Bush when he led us in the war on terrorism. However, I’m beginning to have doubts about this almost inevitable war with Iraq. I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that this war is so crucial to have now. Saddam is nothing new. However, I have supported this impending war thus far. This issue to me has become much more about whether or not Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Common sense tells you that he probably does. However, we have still not seen the evidence of a “smoking gun” as the media like to call it. Yes, Hussein may have ties to Al-Quaeda. So it seems do many other countries in the Middle East. But what makes this so important to do now? We are in a recession. Our unemployment rate is high. We can’t afford all the government programs we have now. Our deficit is growing by the second, especially since Bush has begun deploying troops to the Gulf.
In the first Persian Gulf War, we had a more immediate need to step in and take action. Iraq had clearly (at least by American standards) invaded a smaller country and it had directly affected our oil supply, which despite government rantings about how this was about the principle of the issue, we all know was more about oil and, I may add, still is. We also had most of the world on our side. Fast forward to 2003 and look at what has changed. Half the world is against us (if not more) and we have no clear reason to invade Iraq that we haven’t had in the past 6 years since the inspectors were kicked out.
Why are we so intent that war is the only answer? War should always be a last resort, never a first one, or even a second one. A last one. Always. The inspectors have not had enough time inside Iraq to conclude that Iraq has intentionally violated U.N. resolutions. They simply haven’t.
I am not saying that I would not support a war with Iraq…in the future. But we have not given enough time to watch this scenario play out. We need to keep placing pressure on the Iraqi regime, give the inspectors more time, and then, if all that does not work, forcibly disarming Saddam should be considered an option…an option. Not inevitable.
A friend of mine responded with this:
Dave,
I don't have too much time, just read your email and wanted to give you a
few bits o info. These are only facts, I'm not spinning them w/ my own
take. All of the following can be verified through public record:
- UN weapons inspectors have been looking around the country for over 7
years.
- As early as the first month they were doing it, they found hard evidence
of medium range ICBM testing.
- In the past ~24 months, the head UN inspector has gone repeatedly to the
Security Council telling them that Iraq is not cooperating and that they
are being jerked around.
-They are not allowed into facilities they request access to.
-They are driven around for hours to go a few miles to a location.
-Despite the fact that Saddam personally issued a promise to the Security Council that the inspectors could interview the scientists 1-on-1, a state representative, similar to a lawyer, has been present for all meetings in order for them to take place.
-The head inspector has issued multiple reports to the Secretary General, as well as the security council, that his job is useless. He admits that
he is getting no where and also concludes that he believes that he has
obtained enough information over the years to show a detailed picture of
Iraq's weapons program(s).
- There are less than 200 UN weapons inspectors in the entire country, a
captured Iraq military official revealed that over 20,000 of the Iraq-
equivalent of the FBI/CIA have been watching them.
-Rooms are bugged. Suitcases full of listening devices are routinely
thrown out by UN inspectors upon return to HQ.
-Even their modes of transportation are monitored and bugged.
-The head inspector last year found that his pen, a special gift from a
family member back home, had been replaced with a replica that had a
listening device implanted in it.
- You mentioned that there was no "smoking gun". All of the information
that Sec. State Powell has been presenting to the UN is public record now
and is very, very compelling.
- You mentioned the recession, debt thing. As an upside, every past war,
including Vietnam, has caused a positive move in the economy and created
new jobs. Most wars, upon their conclusion (excluding Vietnam), have caused
large increases in national growth and prosperity.
-As a side note, since the day that Bush sent the first portions of the
task force towards the Middle East, the market has held it's own. If you
were to take the performance from that day till yesterday, that time
segment outperforms the past 2 years.
- You mentioned that in the first war, we had most of the world on our
side. Actually we didn't.
-It took over a year just to get Britain to join us. Much longer for the
rest.
-At the time the war began, most of the countries in the Middle East were
opposed to us doing it. Even the countries we used as staging points.
(Including Saudi Arabia)
- You mentioned that half the world is against us. Not so, when the US
floated a "test water" resolution in the UN, only 7 out of ~220 countries
voted no or abstained.
-The only major nations among the 7 were France, Germany and Iraq.
Germany has since waffled and is starting to support us. Their people overwhelmingly support a US-led activity but their leader
doesn't. That's why their state senate has passed multiple resolutions
supporting us but their leader and ambassador to the UN say they oppose.
- You didn't see a reason to act now, since the inspectors have had
problems for the past few years.
-Since the crumbling of Biopreparat, Russia's CDC/USAMRID many chemical
and biological agents have made their way onto the black market.
-One of the bits of information produced to the UN showed that a few
Years ago, multiple pathogen samples were sold to a representative from Iraq.
Supposedly representing Saddam himself.
-Last year, weapons inspectors found what they believed to be a de-
commissioned Stage 2 laboratory. Their conclusion, outlined in their
report to the UN, was that if they had de-commissioned a Stage 2 facility, they
must have already built and moved into their underground Stage 3 facility. Pathogens produced at a Stage 3 facility is the point at which you
consider them "weapon" ready.
- We have given Saddam many opportunities over the years to change his
ways. Not even to comply with US laws, merely to comply with international
laws.
-He had routinely violated the Geneva convention regarding:
-P.O.W.'s
-Usage of non-combatants as "shields"
-Manipulation of Russian-developed ammunition to bypass the UN/NATO requirements for non-lethal rounds.
-Violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), which they signed.
-Just this week, he offered to "debate" the coming war with President
Bush on national television. This is a very desperate attempt to stall.
- You suggested placing more pressure on the regime. What else can we do?
-We've placed an embargo on most goods going into the country.
-We've placed an embargo on the sale of oil to the world market.
-We've detained multiple of his family members while they were in the
states.
-We've passed multiple resolutions against they in the UN.
- Iraq is one of only a few countries to ever use chemical or biological
weapons against an enemy. (They used chemical against Iran during the
Iran- Iraq war.)
-That makes them a higher risk because they have shown their willingness
to use them.
- Iraq is developing weapons in secret. Throughout history, groups that
develop weapons in secret do so for only one reason. So that it's a
surprise when they use them.
- Just this week US satellite and naval reconnaissance was able to locate
multiple floating tanker-style craft out in the ocean off of Iraq's coast. Iraq denies that they are theirs, despite the ships flying Iraq colors and having registrations matching vessels know to be operated by Saddam's personal intelligence division.
-Hypothesis: Maybe we haven't found more evidence over the years because
the labs are floating out at sea?
- I know this is a far reach but consider the following: I was unable to find a reference in history when the US and Britain ever agreed on an enemy and it turned out to be a bad decision.
-Germany, WWI
-Germany, WWII
-Japan, WWII
-Italy, WWII
-Korea
-Iran
-Phillipines
-I'm willing to bet that, despite what they have produced, the government has additional evidence that it is not prudent to reveal.
-Consider the following scenario from our past: Lets say that we were able to learn WHY the fleet left Japan when they sailed to Pearl Harbor. The US now knows of an imminent attack against us. They might not be sure what day, but they know it's coming. If the government were to make moves to declare war on Japan before the attack, it would have been met with the same resistance that we are giving the gulf situation now. This is a tricky situation. What if the government knows about another 911-scale attack and they are trying to prevent it. They're already distributing single use gas masks to certain Washington
government personnel.
Wow, that took a lot longer than I expected. Let me know what you think
about all this.
Have fun,
Brian
My friend and I talked pretty extensively about this issue and I have made a flip-flop to supporting the war. My biggest reason is that I have realized that we did not invade Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction; we invaded because we thought they may have weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq wanted to prove to us that they did not, they could have let the UN inspectors in, but they did not. They defied us and we put our money where our mouth is. The chances of September 11th repeating itself were just too great.
Dave M.
I don’t mean to go on a rant here, (who does that sound like), but I need to say something about this “War on Terrorism.” What happened to our country on September 11, 2001 was horrible and despicable. Our subsequent war on terrorism in Afghanistan was not only justified, it was just plain right. However, with our current situation in Iraq, I have doubts.
Let me clear something up first. I am a Republican. I voted for Bush. I think Al Gore as a socialist idiot who was no better than Clinton. I supported Bush when he led us in the war on terrorism. However, I’m beginning to have doubts about this almost inevitable war with Iraq. I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that this war is so crucial to have now. Saddam is nothing new. However, I have supported this impending war thus far. This issue to me has become much more about whether or not Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Common sense tells you that he probably does. However, we have still not seen the evidence of a “smoking gun” as the media like to call it. Yes, Hussein may have ties to Al-Quaeda. So it seems do many other countries in the Middle East. But what makes this so important to do now? We are in a recession. Our unemployment rate is high. We can’t afford all the government programs we have now. Our deficit is growing by the second, especially since Bush has begun deploying troops to the Gulf.
In the first Persian Gulf War, we had a more immediate need to step in and take action. Iraq had clearly (at least by American standards) invaded a smaller country and it had directly affected our oil supply, which despite government rantings about how this was about the principle of the issue, we all know was more about oil and, I may add, still is. We also had most of the world on our side. Fast forward to 2003 and look at what has changed. Half the world is against us (if not more) and we have no clear reason to invade Iraq that we haven’t had in the past 6 years since the inspectors were kicked out.
Why are we so intent that war is the only answer? War should always be a last resort, never a first one, or even a second one. A last one. Always. The inspectors have not had enough time inside Iraq to conclude that Iraq has intentionally violated U.N. resolutions. They simply haven’t.
I am not saying that I would not support a war with Iraq…in the future. But we have not given enough time to watch this scenario play out. We need to keep placing pressure on the Iraqi regime, give the inspectors more time, and then, if all that does not work, forcibly disarming Saddam should be considered an option…an option. Not inevitable.
A friend of mine responded with this:
Dave,
I don't have too much time, just read your email and wanted to give you a
few bits o info. These are only facts, I'm not spinning them w/ my own
take. All of the following can be verified through public record:
- UN weapons inspectors have been looking around the country for over 7
years.
- As early as the first month they were doing it, they found hard evidence
of medium range ICBM testing.
- In the past ~24 months, the head UN inspector has gone repeatedly to the
Security Council telling them that Iraq is not cooperating and that they
are being jerked around.
-They are not allowed into facilities they request access to.
-They are driven around for hours to go a few miles to a location.
-Despite the fact that Saddam personally issued a promise to the Security Council that the inspectors could interview the scientists 1-on-1, a state representative, similar to a lawyer, has been present for all meetings in order for them to take place.
-The head inspector has issued multiple reports to the Secretary General, as well as the security council, that his job is useless. He admits that
he is getting no where and also concludes that he believes that he has
obtained enough information over the years to show a detailed picture of
Iraq's weapons program(s).
- There are less than 200 UN weapons inspectors in the entire country, a
captured Iraq military official revealed that over 20,000 of the Iraq-
equivalent of the FBI/CIA have been watching them.
-Rooms are bugged. Suitcases full of listening devices are routinely
thrown out by UN inspectors upon return to HQ.
-Even their modes of transportation are monitored and bugged.
-The head inspector last year found that his pen, a special gift from a
family member back home, had been replaced with a replica that had a
listening device implanted in it.
- You mentioned that there was no "smoking gun". All of the information
that Sec. State Powell has been presenting to the UN is public record now
and is very, very compelling.
- You mentioned the recession, debt thing. As an upside, every past war,
including Vietnam, has caused a positive move in the economy and created
new jobs. Most wars, upon their conclusion (excluding Vietnam), have caused
large increases in national growth and prosperity.
-As a side note, since the day that Bush sent the first portions of the
task force towards the Middle East, the market has held it's own. If you
were to take the performance from that day till yesterday, that time
segment outperforms the past 2 years.
- You mentioned that in the first war, we had most of the world on our
side. Actually we didn't.
-It took over a year just to get Britain to join us. Much longer for the
rest.
-At the time the war began, most of the countries in the Middle East were
opposed to us doing it. Even the countries we used as staging points.
(Including Saudi Arabia)
- You mentioned that half the world is against us. Not so, when the US
floated a "test water" resolution in the UN, only 7 out of ~220 countries
voted no or abstained.
-The only major nations among the 7 were France, Germany and Iraq.
Germany has since waffled and is starting to support us. Their people overwhelmingly support a US-led activity but their leader
doesn't. That's why their state senate has passed multiple resolutions
supporting us but their leader and ambassador to the UN say they oppose.
- You didn't see a reason to act now, since the inspectors have had
problems for the past few years.
-Since the crumbling of Biopreparat, Russia's CDC/USAMRID many chemical
and biological agents have made their way onto the black market.
-One of the bits of information produced to the UN showed that a few
Years ago, multiple pathogen samples were sold to a representative from Iraq.
Supposedly representing Saddam himself.
-Last year, weapons inspectors found what they believed to be a de-
commissioned Stage 2 laboratory. Their conclusion, outlined in their
report to the UN, was that if they had de-commissioned a Stage 2 facility, they
must have already built and moved into their underground Stage 3 facility. Pathogens produced at a Stage 3 facility is the point at which you
consider them "weapon" ready.
- We have given Saddam many opportunities over the years to change his
ways. Not even to comply with US laws, merely to comply with international
laws.
-He had routinely violated the Geneva convention regarding:
-P.O.W.'s
-Usage of non-combatants as "shields"
-Manipulation of Russian-developed ammunition to bypass the UN/NATO requirements for non-lethal rounds.
-Violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), which they signed.
-Just this week, he offered to "debate" the coming war with President
Bush on national television. This is a very desperate attempt to stall.
- You suggested placing more pressure on the regime. What else can we do?
-We've placed an embargo on most goods going into the country.
-We've placed an embargo on the sale of oil to the world market.
-We've detained multiple of his family members while they were in the
states.
-We've passed multiple resolutions against they in the UN.
- Iraq is one of only a few countries to ever use chemical or biological
weapons against an enemy. (They used chemical against Iran during the
Iran- Iraq war.)
-That makes them a higher risk because they have shown their willingness
to use them.
- Iraq is developing weapons in secret. Throughout history, groups that
develop weapons in secret do so for only one reason. So that it's a
surprise when they use them.
- Just this week US satellite and naval reconnaissance was able to locate
multiple floating tanker-style craft out in the ocean off of Iraq's coast. Iraq denies that they are theirs, despite the ships flying Iraq colors and having registrations matching vessels know to be operated by Saddam's personal intelligence division.
-Hypothesis: Maybe we haven't found more evidence over the years because
the labs are floating out at sea?
- I know this is a far reach but consider the following: I was unable to find a reference in history when the US and Britain ever agreed on an enemy and it turned out to be a bad decision.
-Germany, WWI
-Germany, WWII
-Japan, WWII
-Italy, WWII
-Korea
-Iran
-Phillipines
-I'm willing to bet that, despite what they have produced, the government has additional evidence that it is not prudent to reveal.
-Consider the following scenario from our past: Lets say that we were able to learn WHY the fleet left Japan when they sailed to Pearl Harbor. The US now knows of an imminent attack against us. They might not be sure what day, but they know it's coming. If the government were to make moves to declare war on Japan before the attack, it would have been met with the same resistance that we are giving the gulf situation now. This is a tricky situation. What if the government knows about another 911-scale attack and they are trying to prevent it. They're already distributing single use gas masks to certain Washington
government personnel.
Wow, that took a lot longer than I expected. Let me know what you think
about all this.
Have fun,
Brian
My friend and I talked pretty extensively about this issue and I have made a flip-flop to supporting the war. My biggest reason is that I have realized that we did not invade Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction; we invaded because we thought they may have weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq wanted to prove to us that they did not, they could have let the UN inspectors in, but they did not. They defied us and we put our money where our mouth is. The chances of September 11th repeating itself were just too great.
Dave M.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
When I was a sophmore in high school, I met a girl named Amy. Amy was a friend of a friend and we soon struck up a friendship and a romance. Amy was a writer and she sooned turned me on to the idea. I began what I thought was a journal, but what ended up being a small collection of poetry. I called it 1993: The Year of Change. I made a few copies of it and distributed it among family and friends. A year or so later, I put together another book called The Silent Scream From Within. Most of those poems were dark and foreboding, reflecting the heavy issues that I was dealing with at the time. Since that time, my love affair with writing has continued and it is one of the reasons that I have this blog and write in it.
I am thinking again of putting together another book of poetry, short stories and essays. I have written a number of things over the years and I would like to share some of them with other people. Writing for me has always been a release, a way that I figure out things. I do not write because I necessarily enjoy it, I write because I have to. It builds up in me and explodes through channels that are called words and I just do my best to paint a picture of my thoughts and feelings. I do hope that you enjoy my work. I’m always looking for critiques and I will keep you posted regarding the book.
I am thinking again of putting together another book of poetry, short stories and essays. I have written a number of things over the years and I would like to share some of them with other people. Writing for me has always been a release, a way that I figure out things. I do not write because I necessarily enjoy it, I write because I have to. It builds up in me and explodes through channels that are called words and I just do my best to paint a picture of my thoughts and feelings. I do hope that you enjoy my work. I’m always looking for critiques and I will keep you posted regarding the book.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Well, I’m about to make some dispensationalists mad, but here I go. This is a book review I did for my Eschatology class. The book is called The Bible and The Future by Anthony Hoekema. I hope you enjoy.
The Bible and The Future: A Review of the Book by Anthony A. Hoekema
This book has a total of 20 chapters divided into two parts. The first six chapters are part one entitled “Inaugurated Eschatology.” The last fourteen chapters are part two entitled “Future Eschatology.”
In Chapter One, Hoekema discusses the eschatological outlook of the Old Testament. He does this by looking at several concepts throughout the Old Testament. The first is that of the expectation of a coming redeemer. Then he discusses the concept of the kingdom of God, the new covenant, the restoration of Israel, the outpouring of the Spirit, the day of the Lord, and the new heavens and the new earth. All of these are concepts with which the Old Testament discusses.
In Chapter Two, the nature of New Testament Eschatology is discussed. It is apparent that some of the Old Testament expectations have been fulfilled, but not all of them. As Hoekema notes, there is a tension between the “already” and “not yet.” Hoekema sums up the nature of New Testament eschatology in three observations: (1) the great eschatological event predicted in the Old Testament has happened; (2) what the Old Testament writers seemed to depict as one movement is now seen to involve two stages; the present age and the age of the future; and (3) the relation between these two eschatological stages is that the blessings of the present age are the pledge and guarantee of greater blessings to come.
The Meaning of History is then discussed in Chapter Three. Hoekema examines two views regarding this: that of the Greeks regarding cyclical history and that of the atheistic existentialist. Both views, Hoekema says, are incompatible with Christianity. He makes five points regarding the Christian interpretation of history: (1) History is a working out of God’s purposes; (2) God is the Lord of history; (3) Christ is the center of history; (4) The new age has already been ushered in; and (5) All of history is moving toward a goal, the new heavens and the new earth.
In Chapter Four, the kingdom of God is discussed. Hoekema makes the very important point that according to the very words of John the Baptist, the kingdom of God began when Jesus began his ministry and yet has not reached it’s ultimate fulfillment in the new heavens and the new earth.
Chapter Five discusses the Holy Spirit and Eschatology. Hoekema starts by listing the role of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament in three ways: (1) The Holy Spirit will prepare the way for the inbreaking of the final eschatological age by certain prophetic signs; (2) The Spirit is said to be the one that will rest upon the coming redeemer and equip him with the necessary gifts; and (3) The Spirit appears as the source of the future new life of Israel, including both material blessings and ethical renewal. A summary of the rest of the chapter is best summed up by quoting the last paragraph in the chapter. “…In the possession of the Spirit we who are in Christ have a foretaste of the blessings of the age to come, and a pledge and guarantee of the resurrection of the body…”
In Chapter Six, Hoekema elaborates more on the tension between the already and the not yet. He says it is characterized by what we often call “signs of the times” and that the church is involved in this tension. However, the tension should be an incentive for responsible Christian living and that our self-image should reflect this tension. This tension also helps us understand the role of suffering in that of believers and it affects our attitude toward culture.
Hoekema then launches into part two of his work focusing now on Future Eschatology. Unfortunately, because of the fourteen-chapter weight of part two, we can only discuss some of the more important issues. The focus of Hoekema’s work seems to lie in his ammillenialism. He begins this focus by examining some major millennial views and then spends some time critiquing dispensational premillenialism. His first point is that dispensationalism fails to do full justice to the unity of biblical revelation. He also believes that the teaching in dispensationalism that Israel and the Church are two separate entities is in error. He notes that the Old Testament does not teach that there will be a future millennial earthly kingdom nor does it teach a millennial restoration of Jesus to their land, but maintains that most of the passages in the Old Testament that talk about this are talking about the new heaven and the new earth. He also maintains that their belief in the postponement of the kingdom is not supported by Scripture nor is the belief of salvation after Christ returns. In short, Hoekema rejects dispensational millennialism because he rejects dispensationalism of which he does not agree.
Hoekema begins the next chapter by explaining ammillenialism, his belief. He supports the progressive parallelism view of the book of Revelation. Using this background he exegetes Revelation 20:1-6, the only place in the Bible that mentions the millennium. Because of the progressive parallel view that Hoekema takes, Revelation 20:1 would take us back to the beginning of the New Testament era. Hoekema does not take the word “thousand” literally, but rather symbolically standing simply for a long period of time. The binding of Satan is that of Satan not being able to any longer deceive Gentile nations as he did before the first coming of Christ and Hoekema points to the Great Commission as support for this. In that, Christians are commanded tomake disciples of the nations.
This book’s strengths lie in its exhaustive search of the Bible. Whether or not one agrees with Hoekema or not, he does indeed present his argument well. A major strength is that he takes the time to look at the Old Testament eschatological outlook as well as the New Testament. This is where I think that dispensational premillennialists have not done a very good job. He also does a very good job in his chapter on the different views of millennial systems of presenting other’s arguments well and not mischaracterizing them. A weakness of the book is that he offers only one critique of biblical systems other than his own and he does so before he presents his own view, and that seems to be more of a critique of dispensationalism than premillenialism (although I do understand that the two complement each other). It seems much more consistent to present your own view and then offer critiques of others. He spent little to no time on postmillenialism.
However, he does focus on the one dominating millennial view here in his own country of America, that of dispensationalism. That is strength; particularly that he offered an entire chapter to it. In this way, it also contributes very well to current eschatological thought.
As far as my own personal views are concerned, I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church where dispensationalism is the theology taught. Upon leaving the south in order to go to school, I have been challenged by my reformed leanings to dismiss dispensationalism as in error. It is much easier said than done. Dispensationalism has its strong points, but I do agree with Hoekema that it fails to do full justice to biblical revelation. I think that dispensationalism divides things that should not be divided, things such as the church and Israel. I see more unity in covenant theology, but I would not go as far as to say that I am fully persuaded. I have often described myself as a “covenant dispensationalist” because I do see truth in both. It has also been my observation that a great deal of dispensational thought relies heavily on eschatology. I think that dispensational theology is mostly in error here. I believe that Hoekema is correct in his observation that the teaching of the division of Israel and the Church is in error although, as I mentioned, I am not ready to “sell out” to a belief where all the covenants apply to the church either. I agree with Hoekema that the Bible does not teach a future millennial reign of Christ and I hesitantly agree with him on his assessment of the meaning of the word “thousand.” I do wish that there were some more compelling evidence as to the meaning of that word.
I have often marveled at the hyper-literalness approach to the book of Revelation by dispensationalists and their ability to determine what is symbolic and what is not. As Hoekema says, the only place the Bible mentions the millennium is in one place in Scripture and somehow that one mention, I believe has been distorted into something that it is not.
I heartily agree with Hoekema regarding his non-belief of the postponement of the kingdom of God. I believe that the Bible was very clear through the words of John the Baptist and of Jesus that the kingdom of God started a long time ago and is not simply a future manifestation, a sort-of pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by. By emphasizing that, I think that the belief can lend itself to a sort-of delayed materialism where we are more concerned with our laying up of treasures in heaven for our own benefit and pleasure in the afterlife rather than being concerned with becoming an influence here on earth.
I very much enjoyed Hoekema’s book because I have found myself leaning that direction. I like the fact that he took the time to examine what the Old Testament says as well as the New Testament and the time to properly explain terms in their proper context. Prophecy and apocalyptic literature are subjects that many so-called scholars seem to not be so knowledgeable about. Prophecy should not be treated as something in the future but also as a genre of literature and as that it should be properly understood.
In summary, I would heartily recommend Hoekema’s book to anyone who has an interest in the ammillenial point of view. It is very scholarly written and deserves to be heard, especially in this country where the opposite view so prominently exists.
The Bible and The Future: A Review of the Book by Anthony A. Hoekema
This book has a total of 20 chapters divided into two parts. The first six chapters are part one entitled “Inaugurated Eschatology.” The last fourteen chapters are part two entitled “Future Eschatology.”
In Chapter One, Hoekema discusses the eschatological outlook of the Old Testament. He does this by looking at several concepts throughout the Old Testament. The first is that of the expectation of a coming redeemer. Then he discusses the concept of the kingdom of God, the new covenant, the restoration of Israel, the outpouring of the Spirit, the day of the Lord, and the new heavens and the new earth. All of these are concepts with which the Old Testament discusses.
In Chapter Two, the nature of New Testament Eschatology is discussed. It is apparent that some of the Old Testament expectations have been fulfilled, but not all of them. As Hoekema notes, there is a tension between the “already” and “not yet.” Hoekema sums up the nature of New Testament eschatology in three observations: (1) the great eschatological event predicted in the Old Testament has happened; (2) what the Old Testament writers seemed to depict as one movement is now seen to involve two stages; the present age and the age of the future; and (3) the relation between these two eschatological stages is that the blessings of the present age are the pledge and guarantee of greater blessings to come.
The Meaning of History is then discussed in Chapter Three. Hoekema examines two views regarding this: that of the Greeks regarding cyclical history and that of the atheistic existentialist. Both views, Hoekema says, are incompatible with Christianity. He makes five points regarding the Christian interpretation of history: (1) History is a working out of God’s purposes; (2) God is the Lord of history; (3) Christ is the center of history; (4) The new age has already been ushered in; and (5) All of history is moving toward a goal, the new heavens and the new earth.
In Chapter Four, the kingdom of God is discussed. Hoekema makes the very important point that according to the very words of John the Baptist, the kingdom of God began when Jesus began his ministry and yet has not reached it’s ultimate fulfillment in the new heavens and the new earth.
Chapter Five discusses the Holy Spirit and Eschatology. Hoekema starts by listing the role of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament in three ways: (1) The Holy Spirit will prepare the way for the inbreaking of the final eschatological age by certain prophetic signs; (2) The Spirit is said to be the one that will rest upon the coming redeemer and equip him with the necessary gifts; and (3) The Spirit appears as the source of the future new life of Israel, including both material blessings and ethical renewal. A summary of the rest of the chapter is best summed up by quoting the last paragraph in the chapter. “…In the possession of the Spirit we who are in Christ have a foretaste of the blessings of the age to come, and a pledge and guarantee of the resurrection of the body…”
In Chapter Six, Hoekema elaborates more on the tension between the already and the not yet. He says it is characterized by what we often call “signs of the times” and that the church is involved in this tension. However, the tension should be an incentive for responsible Christian living and that our self-image should reflect this tension. This tension also helps us understand the role of suffering in that of believers and it affects our attitude toward culture.
Hoekema then launches into part two of his work focusing now on Future Eschatology. Unfortunately, because of the fourteen-chapter weight of part two, we can only discuss some of the more important issues. The focus of Hoekema’s work seems to lie in his ammillenialism. He begins this focus by examining some major millennial views and then spends some time critiquing dispensational premillenialism. His first point is that dispensationalism fails to do full justice to the unity of biblical revelation. He also believes that the teaching in dispensationalism that Israel and the Church are two separate entities is in error. He notes that the Old Testament does not teach that there will be a future millennial earthly kingdom nor does it teach a millennial restoration of Jesus to their land, but maintains that most of the passages in the Old Testament that talk about this are talking about the new heaven and the new earth. He also maintains that their belief in the postponement of the kingdom is not supported by Scripture nor is the belief of salvation after Christ returns. In short, Hoekema rejects dispensational millennialism because he rejects dispensationalism of which he does not agree.
Hoekema begins the next chapter by explaining ammillenialism, his belief. He supports the progressive parallelism view of the book of Revelation. Using this background he exegetes Revelation 20:1-6, the only place in the Bible that mentions the millennium. Because of the progressive parallel view that Hoekema takes, Revelation 20:1 would take us back to the beginning of the New Testament era. Hoekema does not take the word “thousand” literally, but rather symbolically standing simply for a long period of time. The binding of Satan is that of Satan not being able to any longer deceive Gentile nations as he did before the first coming of Christ and Hoekema points to the Great Commission as support for this. In that, Christians are commanded tomake disciples of the nations.
This book’s strengths lie in its exhaustive search of the Bible. Whether or not one agrees with Hoekema or not, he does indeed present his argument well. A major strength is that he takes the time to look at the Old Testament eschatological outlook as well as the New Testament. This is where I think that dispensational premillennialists have not done a very good job. He also does a very good job in his chapter on the different views of millennial systems of presenting other’s arguments well and not mischaracterizing them. A weakness of the book is that he offers only one critique of biblical systems other than his own and he does so before he presents his own view, and that seems to be more of a critique of dispensationalism than premillenialism (although I do understand that the two complement each other). It seems much more consistent to present your own view and then offer critiques of others. He spent little to no time on postmillenialism.
However, he does focus on the one dominating millennial view here in his own country of America, that of dispensationalism. That is strength; particularly that he offered an entire chapter to it. In this way, it also contributes very well to current eschatological thought.
As far as my own personal views are concerned, I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church where dispensationalism is the theology taught. Upon leaving the south in order to go to school, I have been challenged by my reformed leanings to dismiss dispensationalism as in error. It is much easier said than done. Dispensationalism has its strong points, but I do agree with Hoekema that it fails to do full justice to biblical revelation. I think that dispensationalism divides things that should not be divided, things such as the church and Israel. I see more unity in covenant theology, but I would not go as far as to say that I am fully persuaded. I have often described myself as a “covenant dispensationalist” because I do see truth in both. It has also been my observation that a great deal of dispensational thought relies heavily on eschatology. I think that dispensational theology is mostly in error here. I believe that Hoekema is correct in his observation that the teaching of the division of Israel and the Church is in error although, as I mentioned, I am not ready to “sell out” to a belief where all the covenants apply to the church either. I agree with Hoekema that the Bible does not teach a future millennial reign of Christ and I hesitantly agree with him on his assessment of the meaning of the word “thousand.” I do wish that there were some more compelling evidence as to the meaning of that word.
I have often marveled at the hyper-literalness approach to the book of Revelation by dispensationalists and their ability to determine what is symbolic and what is not. As Hoekema says, the only place the Bible mentions the millennium is in one place in Scripture and somehow that one mention, I believe has been distorted into something that it is not.
I heartily agree with Hoekema regarding his non-belief of the postponement of the kingdom of God. I believe that the Bible was very clear through the words of John the Baptist and of Jesus that the kingdom of God started a long time ago and is not simply a future manifestation, a sort-of pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by. By emphasizing that, I think that the belief can lend itself to a sort-of delayed materialism where we are more concerned with our laying up of treasures in heaven for our own benefit and pleasure in the afterlife rather than being concerned with becoming an influence here on earth.
I very much enjoyed Hoekema’s book because I have found myself leaning that direction. I like the fact that he took the time to examine what the Old Testament says as well as the New Testament and the time to properly explain terms in their proper context. Prophecy and apocalyptic literature are subjects that many so-called scholars seem to not be so knowledgeable about. Prophecy should not be treated as something in the future but also as a genre of literature and as that it should be properly understood.
In summary, I would heartily recommend Hoekema’s book to anyone who has an interest in the ammillenial point of view. It is very scholarly written and deserves to be heard, especially in this country where the opposite view so prominently exists.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
You ever have one of those days where you start off quite different than where you end up? Where you end up in a place at the end of the day that you never thought you would be at at the beginning of the day? Yesterday, my day started normal. Up at 5:30, shower, coffee, devotions, some quick computer work, pack up my stuff, and out the door around 7am. A friend called me and asked me for a ride home that night after class and I agreed. I worked all day and had a Eschatology midterm that evening. I finished it quite early and went to the library at school to wait on my friend. He showed up, asked if I minded that he look some stuff up real quick before we left. It wasn’t a problem. He also checked his email and discovered that an old friend of his, a “wanderng brother” was playing at a coffee house with his band open mic night. He asked if I minded a pit stop. No problem again.
Fast forward an hour or so and I’m sitting in a crowded, hot coffee house still in my work clothes (shirt and tie) listening to young teenagers pour out their angst at the world and it felt like I was looking in a mirror at myself about ten years ago. In March of 1994, I was a senior in high school. I had come to a place where although I claimed to be a believer, I was frustrated with the legalism I faced at school and the pride and arrogance I faced at church. I poured out my heart in my poetry and cried on a regular basis because I was having the worst time finding my place in the world. I looked up to Kurt Cobain who I saw as a lost, confused soul pouring out his anger and confusion through his music. Just a month later, he would commit suicide. Seven months later, I would find myself sitting in the gravel pit parking lot of Liberty University crying to God to save me because I realized what a wretched sinner I was. Now ten years later, I was looking back through the eyes of other youth who felt the same way and wanting them to know that I desperately care.
A few minutes later, I was standing outside on one of those cold Michigan nights watching the snow fall and listening to my friend invite the “wandering brother” to church once again. Of course, the brother made an excuse and we left feeling not much better than when we had got there. I took my friend home and thought about my day as my truck took me home. Where was I? Although I have often felt like I was spinning my wheels, I look back at myself ten years ago and realize what a difference that Christ has made. I am moving ahead. By the grace of God, I am.
Fast forward an hour or so and I’m sitting in a crowded, hot coffee house still in my work clothes (shirt and tie) listening to young teenagers pour out their angst at the world and it felt like I was looking in a mirror at myself about ten years ago. In March of 1994, I was a senior in high school. I had come to a place where although I claimed to be a believer, I was frustrated with the legalism I faced at school and the pride and arrogance I faced at church. I poured out my heart in my poetry and cried on a regular basis because I was having the worst time finding my place in the world. I looked up to Kurt Cobain who I saw as a lost, confused soul pouring out his anger and confusion through his music. Just a month later, he would commit suicide. Seven months later, I would find myself sitting in the gravel pit parking lot of Liberty University crying to God to save me because I realized what a wretched sinner I was. Now ten years later, I was looking back through the eyes of other youth who felt the same way and wanting them to know that I desperately care.
A few minutes later, I was standing outside on one of those cold Michigan nights watching the snow fall and listening to my friend invite the “wandering brother” to church once again. Of course, the brother made an excuse and we left feeling not much better than when we had got there. I took my friend home and thought about my day as my truck took me home. Where was I? Although I have often felt like I was spinning my wheels, I look back at myself ten years ago and realize what a difference that Christ has made. I am moving ahead. By the grace of God, I am.
How do I describe the darkness inside my head?
The noise, the sound of silence mixed with thoughts
of confusion; States of anarchy and perplexity
run amuck to bring me down to destruction.
They--these thoughts, these people--
are indeed trying to destroy me.
They grow weary of my knowledge,
pretending they know me
and trying to place me in their world.
I am not a toy nor a “yes man.”
Faith is not the enemy of knowledge,
but I am the enemy of ignorance.
I hate it, disdain it, abhor it, anger it,
but never serve it.
Clouded thoughts can not think for themselves,
but I try to clear them away, try to see the light,
try to understand what the light is.
I beat my head on this splintered wall
until I bleed from desperation.
Forever I grasp to reach forever
and discover yet again
a bloody mess, empty hands,
and a heart that longs to be found
but forever lost among the darkness.
The noise, the sound of silence mixed with thoughts
of confusion; States of anarchy and perplexity
run amuck to bring me down to destruction.
They--these thoughts, these people--
are indeed trying to destroy me.
They grow weary of my knowledge,
pretending they know me
and trying to place me in their world.
I am not a toy nor a “yes man.”
Faith is not the enemy of knowledge,
but I am the enemy of ignorance.
I hate it, disdain it, abhor it, anger it,
but never serve it.
Clouded thoughts can not think for themselves,
but I try to clear them away, try to see the light,
try to understand what the light is.
I beat my head on this splintered wall
until I bleed from desperation.
Forever I grasp to reach forever
and discover yet again
a bloody mess, empty hands,
and a heart that longs to be found
but forever lost among the darkness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
