This King of Glory

April 14, 2008

In truth, and to my shame, I have not given the ascension of Christ much thought in the past; but this year this event is something that is consuming much of my Bible study time. In pursuing this study I’ve discovered the ascension to be more than only an historical event, more than merely a part of a confession of faith, and more than just a yearly commemoration of the bodily ascension of Jesus into Heaven. Instead it is a study through which I hear more clearly the song of the Heavenly chorus singing “Holy, Holy, Holy…”; a study that has exalted the “bread that came down from heaven” to a new superlative; a study that has given me a renewed and almost unspeakable joy at the thought of “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way…”.

The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof,the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.

Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD? And who shall stand in his holy place?

He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully. He will receive blessing from the LORD and righteousness from the God of his salvation. Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob.

Lift up your heads, O gates! And be lifted up, O ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in.

Who is this King of glory? The LORD, strong and mighty, the LORD, mighty in battle!

Lift up your heads, O gates! And lift them up, O ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in.

Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory!

(Psalms 24:1-10)

Advertisements

the Creation and The Scripture Number 4

April 13, 2008

And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:17-19)

                      adam.after

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Romans 8:20-22)


Who is The Enemy of Science Education?

April 13, 2008

According to one of the icons of Paleontology, Robert Bakker, the answer is “elitist anti-creationists“.

Quote:

  • [Switek] Finally, as someone who works with the “bones of contention” and the fossil record, what do you think about the current controversy surrounding evolution in the United States? How can we do a better job of communicating science to the public?

[Bakker] We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science. What’s the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?

Militant Creationism?

No way. It’s the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.

These shrill uber-Darwinists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious traditions. If you’re not an atheist, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.

As many commentators have noted, in televised debates, these Darwinists seem devoid of joy or humor, except a haughty delight in looking down their noses. Dawkinsian screeds are sermons to the choir; the message pleases only those already convinced. Dawkins wins no converts from the majority of U.S. parents who still honor a Biblical tradition.

Source: Paleontological Profiles: Robert Bakker

As an aside, after reading Brian Switek’s complete interview with Robert Bakker, be sure to read the comments being posted about the interview.

I wonder if Mr. Bakker’s challenge to evolutionary orthopraxy will cause him to be Expelled as a troublemaker? I hope not.


Without The Name

April 12, 2008

The closing song of the “Idol Gives Back” special was the epitome in song of  the condition of Christianity in America today: works and entertainment but no substance.

In case you missed it, every word of the song Shout to the Lord was used except for one: Jesus. Unfortunately, this is an omission that is also increasingly common in many Churches today.

Just as without the name of Jesus that song has no meaning, without Jesus there is no Church. Without Him there is no hope, no joy, no peace, no life, no freedom, no sacrifice, and no salvation.

Apart from the name of Jesus there is only worship of an American Idol.


Google Bias Exposed

April 10, 2008

Quote:

The Christian Institute, a U.K.-based Christian group affiliated with the Church of England, is crying foul with a lawsuit against Google after the popular internet search engine rejected their pro-life advertisements.

The group, which had purchased an “AdWords” advertisement that would bring up information on abortion laws and a link to their homepage every time a user searched for “abortion,” is claiming that Google rejected their advertisements in an act of deliberate discrimination against their views.

According to Google, the company has a policy of rejecting “inappropriate” advertisements that mix religion and abortion.

(Links and emphasis added) Source: netvangelize.news

I checked out Google’s policies and couldn’t locate anything that indicated a policy of rejecting advertisements that mix religion and abortion, appropriate or not. I don’t mean to imply that Google does not have such a policy, just that it is not a policy that they seem to be willing to otherwise make public. I would assume that the policy would also define “inappropriate” in this context, but that’s also something Google seems to have decided to not make public. I don’t mean to imply that Google’s judgement about the inappropriateness of the ad is wrong, just that the decision seems subjective because of their lack of forthrightness.

Google’s admitted policy against mixing religion and abortion, by definition, is a policy of religious censorship. This being the case, adding the word “inappropriate” to their excuse is just a smoke screen (or perhaps red meat for the extreme left wing) and is disingenuous at best. Why Google would not simply and plainly admit to this bias is beyond my comprehension; but I suppose it’s hard to be politically correct (support abortion / oppose religion, especially Christian religion) when you are also engaged in an activity that is definitely not politically correct (censorship).

It’s ironic that the company whose name is a synonymous term for Internet word search is having trouble with their search for words to express their Internet terms.


e-Resource Tip: The Truth About Man

April 7, 2008

Paul Washer has a new book available online titled The Truth About Man (A Biblical Study of the Doctrine of Man).

Quote:

The great goal of this study is for the student to have an encounter with God through His Word. Founded upon the conviction that the Scriptures are the inspired and infallible Word of God, this study has been designed in such a way that it is literally impossible for the student to advance without an open Bible before him or her. Our goal is to obey the exhortation of the apostle Paul in II Timothy 2:15: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”

It’s solid food cover to cover. By the way, be sure to read the Introduction– especially if you have ever wondered about the importance of studying Biblical doctrine.


Righteous Anger?

April 7, 2008

mistake

I’m pretty sure the video in this post at The Salvo Blog is not a good example of Righteous Anger.

In fact, it may be a  good example of how to not answer a fool (Proverbs 26:4) instead of how to answer one (26:5).