CookieofDoom

I’ve Moved

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:25:21 -0500

So… in case you missed it, I moved from Tumblr to my Wordpress-based site: http://cookieofdoom.com

I may still occasionally post on here, and I’ll still use Tumblr to follow some people. Most of my writing, though, will be done on the new site. It’s worth noting, too, that I’m blogging on there a lot more often than I ever did on here.

Seeya around, Tumblr!

"Preach Christ, always and everywhere. He is the whole of the gospel. His person offices, and work..."

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:52:55 -0500

“Preach Christ, always and everywhere. He is the whole of the gospel. His person offices, and work must be our one great, all-comprehending theme.”

- Charles Spurgeon

"‎”I preach as though Christ was crucified yesterday, rose from the dead today and was coming back..."

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:09:37 -0500

“‎”I preach as though Christ was crucified yesterday, rose from the dead today and was coming back tomorrow.” (Martin Luther)”

- (via eliza5)

"(#4) Resolved, never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what..."

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:22:00 -0500

“(#4) Resolved, never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God; nor be, nor suffer it, if I can avoid it.

…

(#23) Resolved, frequently to take some deliberate action, which seems most unlikely to be done, for the glory of God, and trace it back to the original intention, designs and ends of it; and if I find it not to be for God’s glory, to repute it as a breach of the 4th Resolution.”

- Jonathan Edwards (Resolutions)

New unified website? …Maybe.

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:32:56 -0500

New unified website? …Maybe.

"Salvation may be described as the blind receiving sight, the deaf receiving hearing, the dead..."

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:42:52 -0500

“Salvation may be described as the blind receiving sight, the deaf receiving hearing, the dead receiving life; but we have not only received these blessings, we have received Christ Jesus Himself. It is true that He gave us life from the dead. He gave us pardon of sin; He gave us imputed righteousness. These are all precious things, but we are not content with them; we have received Christ Himself. The Son of God has been poured into us, and we have received Him, and appropriated Him. What a heartful Jesus must be, for heaven itself cannot contain Him!”

- C.H. Spurgeon

"I will tell you one thing that proves—proves to a demonstration, that Christ is still precious to..."

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:08:36 -0400

“I will tell you one thing that proves—proves to a demonstration, that Christ is still precious to his people, and it is this:—send one of Christ’s people to hear the most noted preacher of the age, whoever that may be; he preaches a very learned sermon, very fine and magnificent, but there is not a word about Christ in that sermon. Suppose that to be the case, and the Christian man will go out and say, “I did not care a farthing for that man’s discourse.” Why? “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. I heard nothing about Christ.” Send that man on the Sabbath morning to hear some hedge and ditch preacher, some one who cuts the king’s English about never so badly, but who preaches Jesus Christ—you will see the tears rolling down that man’s face, and when he comes out he will say, “I do not like that man’s bad grammar; I do not like the many mistakes he has made, but oh! it has done my heart good, for he spoke about Christ.””

- C. H. Spurgeon

…I love Calvin and Hobbes…

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 01:34:26 -0400

…I love Calvin and Hobbes…

Concerning Semantics

Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:37:00 -0400

Recently, the issue of semantics seems to have been popping up all over the place. This seems to be due to the fact that we rarely define the terms we use. Often, we don’t have to: word meaning is generally understood rather universally. The issue comes up when a word is not understood in the same way; people will often—with little to no reason for it—insist that their definition is the correct one and all others are wrong. This post is written in an attempt to clear up some confusion and, perhaps, make some conversations more productive.

The Meaning of a Word

Language is a tricky thing. My professors here have pointed out that a word, by itself, does not really have any meaning. It must be used in a group of words (thoughts, clauses, sentences) to really mean anything. This is shown, perhaps most obviously, by the fact that dictionaries often have more than one definition for a word; context is an huge deciding factor in determining word meaning.

If word meaning is so inextricably tied to context, it follows that the meaning of a word will shift over time as one’s cultural and historical context changes. A good example, which probably needs no explanation, is the development of the word “gay” over the last few decades. Put simply, it doesn’t mean what it used to.

An Important Distinction

Now, I wish to make a distinction between what I’m saying and what some liberals would say. Contrary to liberals, I do not think that the audience gets to decide what a word’s meaning is. It is the job of the audience to try to understand what the communicator means by the words he says; it’s not to import their own meaning and thus render the words effectively meaningless, a blank canvas upon which the audience can paint any meaning they want. At the same time, however, it is the job of the communicator to make his message as easy to interpret as is reasonable.

The Big Problem

Why am I saying all of this? Well, there are (at least) two mistakes we can make when it comes to word meanings. One is the aforementioned liberalism, making a communicators words mean whatever we want them to mean. The other is insisting on our definition of a word being the right one, despite the insistence of others that it is not. This is actually a massive problem when it comes to how people do theology.

When we do theology, we have to use words to describe things. Some words are universally agreed on: “Christology” means the study of Christ to virtually anyone. Some words mean different things to different people. “Sovereignty” will mean something different to a Weselyan than it does to a Calvinist; by a Calvinist’s definition of the word, a Weselyan does not believe in the sovereignty of God. Other words, those words used in the Bible, must be defined within the context of the passage being discussed. The word “love” in the Bible does not always mean sacrificial-love, even if you drill down into the Greek. God agape’d the world (Jn. 3:16), but we’re told not to agape the world (1 Jn. 2:15). Aren’t we supposed to sacrificially love the world? Yes. John, in his usage of the word agape, means something other than sacrificial love.

So What?

This has been long, but I’m coming to a close. Here are some basic principles:

For words that everyone agrees on the meaning: we should continue to use them as we do. If confusion starts to arise, we need to ask people to define their terms or define our terms.

For words that mean different things to different people: we need to define our terms, not hold to tightly to our definition of a word, and be willing to substitute another word when talking to someone who doesn’t understand that word the same way we do. Sometimes this will result in using made-up language just for the purpose of holding a conversation: like substituting “all-controlling-ness” for the word “sovereignty.” This might seem silly, but it’s helpful.

For words that are found in the Bible, there is no simple solution. Understand that just because someone is using a word found in the Bible does not mean they are using it the same way the Bible does. For example: the Bible never uses the word “call” to refer to telephone usage. We use it that way all the time, though. Additionally, as I already mentioned, there are many words in the Bible that we cannot nail down a universal definition for (like agape). You’re going to have to talk through a person’s word usage when they use a Bible-word and understand why they are using it the way they are; get them to either admit they aren’t using it the way the Bible does (there’s nothing wrong or sinful about that; it’s just sometimes confusing), or tell you what passage they are getting their meaning from.

Summary

In short, the trick to having a productive conversation is to define terms. You can avoid a lot of those conversations where you are “saying the same thing but disagreeing on how to say it.” Try to get to the root concepts that you’re talking about and move past the words that may or may not be describing them. Arguing over semantics is probably one of the most boring things you can possibly do.

OT Survey Application – Joshua 5:13–14

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:47:00 -0400

Text: Joshua 5:13–14

Title: “Now I Have Come”

Interpretive summary: Joshua has been confirmed by Yahweh as the leader of the Canaanite conquest; he’s led Israel across the Jordan (ch. 3) and they are now encamped at Gilgal, soon to invade Jericho (5:10). Joshua now requests orders from an unexpected visitor who identifies himself as the commander of armies of Yahweh.

Notes on this episode:

Joshua’s proximity to Jericho (5:13) was probably because he was determining how best to take it. “It is very likely that Joshua had gone out privately to reconnoitre the city of Jericho when he had this vision” (Adam Clarke, Commentary on Joshua)
That the sword-bearing man whom Joshua saw is called a man does not preclude him from being a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. “The verb הִנֵּה (hinneh, ‘look’) invites the reader to view the scene through Joshua’s eyes. By calling the stranger ‘a man,’ the author reflects Joshua’s perspective.” (net Translation Notes, 5:13)
Calvin writes: “the denial applies equally to both parts of the question, namely, that he was neither an Israelite nor a Canaanite.” (Calvin, Commentary on Joshua) This man’s allegiance was to God; although God would fight for Israel if they kept His covenant (cf. Deut. 28).
“In his representing himself as different from God, a personal distinction is denoted, but unity of essence is not destroyed […]It cannot be inferred with certainty from the worship which he offered, whether Joshua paid divine honor to Christ distinctly recognized as such; but by asking, What command does my Lord give to his servant? he attributes to him a power and authority which belong to God alone.” (Calvin, Commentary on Joshua) While Calvin does not seem to believe this to necessarily be a theophany, he does believe that God’s presence was in some way manifest; the man to whom Joshua was speaking was, in some way, one with God.
John Wesley believed that this was indeed “the Son of God,” reasoning that He must be “by his acceptance of adoration here, which a created angel durst not admit of, Rev. 22:8-9” (Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on Joshua 5:14)
“Exodus 23:20–33 relates God’s promise of his angel to secure Israel’s success in conquest.” (esv Study Bible Notes, Joshua 5:14) God’s promise was now being fulfilled in His angel, who either represented or embodied His very presence, standing before Joshua to issue commands. “God is said to come to us when we are actually made sensible of his assistance.” (Calvin, Commentary on Joshua) God had always been with Joshua; this appearance made that clear.

Big Idea: God graciously manifests His presence.

Application: God makes promises regarding His presence throughout the Bible. If there had been any doubt in Joshua’s mind as to whether or not God would indeed fight for Israel, this event would help clear that away. When God promises to do something, He always does it. As a Christian, I can look back through the Bible to see instances like this where God, after making a promise, later kept it (e.g. Gen. 21:1–2). This truth is best and most beautifully manifest in the incarnation. The promises contained in the name Immanuel and the child prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 respectively were kept and improved when “the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us” (Jn. 1:14). Because of God’s history of staying faithful to His promises, I can be sure that – regardless of how insurmountable a Jericho I may be called to war against – Christ’s promise to always be with His church will hold true (Mt. 28:20), as will His promise to return for us (Rev. 22:20). God is good and He keeps His promises; history proves this.

OT Survey Application – Genesis 3:11

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:49:00 -0400

I’ve decided to post a bunch of my papers related to theology and the Bible after submitting them for anyone who might find them helpful (I’m thinking mostly Sr. Highers). The format is a bit odd since it was enforced. This is the passage that first got me started thinking about expiation; I’m probably going to be writing more about that doctrine in the future.

Text: Genesis 3:11

Title: God’s response to our sin and shame.

Interpretive summary: Adam – having eaten from the tree from which he was forbidden to eat and hidden from God because of his nakedness – is now being questioned by God with regard to his sin and the means by which he discovered his nakedness.

Notes on this episode:

Adam and Eve had, until eating from the tree, been naked without shame (Gen. 2:25). The discovery of their nakedness had come with the opening of their eyes upon having eaten the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:7).
Adam had openly stated that his reason for hiding from God was his own nakedness (Gen. 3:10), this despite the fact that he had already made a covering for himself (Gen. 3:7).
The word Hebrew word here translated “naked” (’eyrom) is frequently used in the book of Ezekiel with a connotation of shame (Ezk. 16:7, 22, 39; 23:29). Clarke writes: “Their eyes were opened, and they saw they were naked. They saw what they never saw before, that they were stripped of their excellence; that they had lost their innocence; and that they had fallen into a state of indigence and danger.” (Adam Clarke, Commentary on Gen. 3:7)
Since God knows all things (Prov. 15:3), the intent of His questioning is not likely information acquisition. Calvin believed that the questioning was pedagogical, intended to teach the man what he had done. “God asks, in the language of doubt, not as if he were searching into some disputable matter, but for the purpose of piercing more acutely the stupid man, who, laboring under fatal disease, is yet unconscious of his malady…” (John Calvin, Commentary on Gen. 3:11)
God’s decision to teach Adam and Eve rather than simply enact in full the judgment which He had promised is grace. He sought them although they did not seek Him. “They began to feel their misery, but they did not seek God for a remedy.” (Geneva Translation Notes on Genesis 3:7)
God does not refer to the tree as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” like before (Gen. 2:17). He calls it “the tree of which I commanded you not to eat.” This makes his disobedience abundantly clear. “Sin appears most plain and most sinful in the glass of the commandment.” (Wesley, Commentary on Gen. 3:11).
The questions and ordering thereof seem to indicate that God is telling Adam that His sin is the means by which he had discovered his nakedness.

Big Idea: God patiently disciplines.

Application: God could have punished Adam and Eve on the spot. His line of questioning helped them to understand their sin. Adam and Eve only knew that they were naked because of their sin; their nakedness had not mattered to them prior to their having sin. They had run away and hidden from God rather than going to Him for help. In His grace, God went to them rather than leaving them on their own. We can go to God even in our sin; even when we don’t go to God, He comes to us. As Christians we should run to God rather than from Him because we know that He has taken our sin and shame from us in Jesus.

oh to behold: Charles Spurgeon

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:25:11 -0400

oh to behold: Charles Spurgeon:

ohtobehold:

Needed this reminder.

“Men, and women, and children, when in trouble, cry without a book; and so when a man really wants the Savior, he does not require book-prayers. Never say, “Oh, I cannot pray!” My dear friend, can you cry? You want to be saved; tell the Lord that. If you cannot say it in…

…or are we too grown up to cry and pray?…

MBI: Theology Proper Paper

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:52:23 -0400

Summary: God is an eternal (Isa. 40:28), benevolent (Psa. 73:1, Matt 5:45, 7:11), Creator (Gen 1:1, Joh. 1:3) God who has revealed Himself to us through Scripture (Joh. 5:39) as Yahweh, a gracious, merciful, long-suffering, loving, and just God (Exo. 34:6-7) existing as God the Father (Rom. 1:7), God the Son (Joh. 5:58, Rom. 9:5), and God the Holy Spirit (Act. 5:3-4) while remaining one God (Deu. 6:4).

Existence and Definition: Scripture never tries to prove God’s existence; however His existence is always assumed even from the beginning (Gen. 1:1). Definitions of God will always fail because there is nothing to which God can be compared (Isa. 40:25). God is the creator of all things (Col. 1:16), this is to say that nothing in existence has its existence apart from God (Joh. 1:3). All things, then, exist from and for God (Rom. 11:36). He may, then, be defined as the first and primary cause; though this too falls short.

Names and Attributes: God is merciful, gracious, longsuffering, rich in chesed and faithfulness, forgiving of sin, and just (Exo. 34:6-7); He is eternal (Isa. 40:28), omniscient (Job. 37:16, Psa. 147:5), omnipotent (Psa. 115:3, Dan. 4:35), and omnipresent (Psa. 139:7–12). God’s names include: Yahweh-yireh (God will see or provide, Gen. 22:1–14), Yahweh-nissi (God is my banner, Exo. 17:15), Yahweh-rapha (God is healer, Exo. 15:22-27), Adonai (master, Deu. 10:17, Psa. 8:1), El Shaddai (God Almighty, Exo. 6:3), El Elyon (God Most High, Gen. 14:18), and Yehoshua (Jesus, Yahweh is salvation, Mat. 1:21).

Creation: God made everything through His Son for His glory (Col. 1:16, Psa. 19:1–6). Through that which has been created, including ourselves, we can understand aspects of God such as His eternal power and divine nature (Rom 1:19-20); we can know that He exists and that we owe Him honor and thanksgiving (Rom 1:21), but through creation we cannot know anything of the Gospel (Rom. 10:14-17).

Sovereignty: God is in control of all creation (Psa. 115:3) including natural things like planetary motion and provision for animals (Job 38, Mat. 6:26). He is also completely sovereign over human government (Pro. 21:1) and human decisions (Pro. 16:9, Jer. 10:23), including salvation (Joh. 15:16).

Application: God’s eternal nature means that I don’t have to worry about God ever not being there. His sovereignty means that I don’t have to panic because He is in charge. His benevolence means that His sovereignty is a good thing for me. That He is a Creator means that I owe Him everything. That God reveals Himself in Scripture in Christ means that I can truly know Him. His grace, mercy, long-suffering, and love, are that to which I must cling every day because I am not good and did not render to Him any of what He is due. His justice is good news and provides me with hope. God the Father disciplines me as a son and will provide me with anything I need. The Son of God, through union with the same, makes it possible for me to also be a son of God. The Holy Spirit dwells within me, convicts me of sin, gives me life, and allows me to understand things of God which I otherwise could never understand. The unity of these three means that I can fully rely on this Trinitarian God and not fear that He is capricious or that one part of the Godhead doesn’t like me.

Moody Guys – Followup

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:13:00 -0400

So some issues were (anonymously) raised with my last post and I thought I would address them briefly.

“…you cannot assume that just because you see numerous guys around females, that they are just trying to flirt, or get a date, or find a wife. I’ve seen you around girls occasionally, and I never make such assumptions…”

True. I wasn’t talking to the people who happen to be around girls. I have seen young women be made visibly uncomfortable (and talked to them about it) by guys following them around everywhere, though. If that’s not you, then this post isn’t really for you.

“…God NEVER discourages marriage, or seeking a godly wife— ever. Yes, girls can become an idol, but that totally depends on one’s attitude towards it…”

God actually commanded marriage (cf. Genesis 1 and 2). Paul later stated in 1 Corinthians 7 that there may be reasons (which, within the historical context of 1 Corinthians was probably either a coming famine or persecution) that one may wish to not get married and would be right to do so. I have nothing against men and women getting married; my issue is with idolatry. Again, if that’s not an issue for someone then this post was not written for him.

“…Yes, girls can become an idol, but that totally depends on one’s attitude towards it. I would be very cautious with how you judge others in this area. There are many areas in your own life that could be idols…”

Yes, it depends on one’s attitude. This post was not polemic against guys hanging out with girls, it was polemic against idolatry. I have my own idols, plenty of them. When you see mine, I would greatly appreciate if you would tell me about them. This post was intended as a warning and encouragement, not a condemnation.

“Also, you imply that a relationship with a girl naturally gets in the way with your relationship with God, That is not so!! Why would God institute marriage if it was not meant to bring one CLOSER to God? Yes, dating is not marriage, but if you do not date, court, or talk to girls. YOU WILL NOT BE MARRIED!”

We are our own enemies when it comes to our relationship with God; we will use anything we can as a weapon against Him: this includes relationships. Food was intended to bring you closer to God (in that it points to Jesus who alone can satisfy our deepest needs, cf John 6:35), but gluttony is still a sin for many people. Often, we don’t recognize our idols. They seem normal to us. This post was meant as a wake-up call.

Hopefully that clears some things up. I’m sorry if I came across as judgmental. I am one wicked sinner saved by God’s grace trying to help others with something they might not be able to see. Thank you for posting your concerns, I really do appreciate it.

Moody Guys: Please Read

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:52:42 -0400

Maybe I’m cynical… okay, I am cynical. But in order to try not to be cynical I have to point out that cynicism isn’t all bad… (trust me, that was actually profound and hilarious).

In my wanderings around Spokane, especially on the Fall retreat, I’ve noticed something; well, I’ve noticed a few things. The first is that a 45/55 guy-to-girl ratio is really quite clear. There are a lot of girls that go to Moody. The second thing I noticed is that most girls have 3–4 guys following them around about 90% of the time.

This struck me as funny at first, one of those sorts of “Oh, Bible College…” moments. As I’ve thought about it, though, I’m not sure how healthy it is. First of all, if I was a girl at Moody, I’m pretty sure I would just get sick of it and want to slug some people. Secondly, it could very easily be idolatry (though, I certainly don’t want to say that this is universally the case). I’m getting long winded now, so I’ll make my point and then shut up.

Young men: your goal in life is not to get married. I have a friend who is figuring this out the hard way. Marriage, relationships can be just as much an idol as can money, sex, or television. If you make that the ultimate thing in your life, it will fail you. Your wife-to-be isn’t Jesus. She cannot validate your existence, take away your sin, justify you, or make you holy. That job belongs to Jesus alone (cf. 1 Cor 1:30). You need to get to know Him, become a good bride, before you can get to know a woman and become her husband (cf. Eph 5:22&c).

You probably knew that already; it’s pretty common. The problem is that what we often do is try to become a good Christian man with a good relationship with Jesus so that we can be a good husband. This is still idolatry. Marriage exists to point us to Jesus; Jesus doesn’t exist to make us fit for marriage.

I’ll summarize. Although marriage can assist you in getting to know and love Jesus, knowing and loving Jesus should never be seen as a means to being happily married. Stop following girls around and follow Jesus. When you are ready to get married for the purpose of sanctification, reflecting God’s love for the church, and loving her, then pick one godly woman (cf. 1 Tim 3:2) and pursue her… but give her room to breathe.

Whatever you are pursuing, Jesus is better (cf. the book of Hebrews and actually the whole Bible).

"Idolatry does not consist merely of erecting an image and praying to it. It is primarily in the..."

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:08:21 -0400

“Idolatry does not consist merely of erecting an image and praying to it. It is primarily in the heart, which pursues other things and seeks help and consolation from creatures, saints, or devils. It neither cares for God nor expects good things from him sufficiently to trust that he wants to help, nor does it believe that whatever good it receives comes from God.”

- Martin Luther, The Large Catechism (via zak-is-lost)

Testimonies Rant

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:49:31 -0400

I just listened to about fifteen testimonies. Most of them were from teenagers who grew up in church. Most of them said that they accepted the Gospel at a young age. Most of them said that they took until they were almost out of high-school to really start living for Jesus (I’ve taken longer).

I realize this isn’t the fault of the parents or the church. An individual is responsible for his own sin.

That said, if you are going to be a parent or a church leader, please do me a favor. Make sure you don’t give people like us an excuse. Pound the gospel into kids over and over again. Make it very clear that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone. Make it very clear that Jesus is the point of the Bible. Make it very clear that idols don’t work and end in death…

We should teach kids (and everyone) the gospel in such a way that they can either embrace it or reject it. We should not let people ignore it.

That’s all. I’m done. Go about your business.

The Freshman Fifteen

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:02:13 -0400

The Freshman Fifteen:

eliza5:

The Freshman 15

Dining hall food gets a bad rap, but incoming college freshmen don’t seem to have a problem packing on the infamous “freshman 15.” Honoring that tradition, here are 15 ways incoming freshmen (or upperclassmen for that matter) can seek to glorify God as they head off to college…

"I believe that it still thrills the angels with astonishment that man, when he had fallen from his..."

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:56:57 -0400

“I believe that it still thrills the angels with astonishment that man, when he had fallen from his high estate, and had been banished from Eden, and had become a rebel against God, should be redeemed by the blood of the Heir of all things, by whom the Divine Father made the worlds.”

- C. H. Spurgeon

"In Jesus the promise is confirmed, the covenant is renewed, the prophecies are fulfilled, the law is..."

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:00:05 -0400

“In Jesus the promise is confirmed, the covenant is renewed, the prophecies are fulfilled, the law is vindicated, salvation is brought near, sacred history has reached its climax the perfect sacrifice has been offered and accepted, the great priest over the household of God has taken his seat at God’s right hand, the Prophet like Moses has been raised up, the Son of David reigns, the kingdom of God has been inaugurated, the Son of Man has received dominion from the Ancient of Days, the Servant of the Lord, having been smitten to death for his people’s transgression and borne the sin of many, has accomplished the divine purpose, has seen the light after the travail of his soul and is now exalted and extolled and made very high.”

- F.F. Bruce (The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes)