03/06/08
A Great Blessing
I don't usually write on this thing anymore... what else is new? I attempt to make a comeback, it fails, over and over again. Oh well. But I thought this warranted a big enough news brief for anyone who might stumble across my little blog every once in a blue moon.
My wife and I will be having a child! Well, I suppose it will really be my wife who will be having the baby - but I'd like to think I did something to get us to this point, too.
In all seriousness, though, this is a great blessing. Unexpected, and a blessing I'm not even beginning to fully comprehend just yet, but a great blessing nonetheless. We couldn't be happier. I'm also not sure I've ever been quite as terrified as I am right now - there are a lot of questions. But I have some confidence that the Lord will see us through. We will definitely screw up. I don't know the first thing about being a father.
But people have been parenting for the last 6,000 years right? All sinners, too. They did alright. By the grace of God, we will, too, right? I hope so.
"I will praise you forever for what you have done; in your name I will hope, for your name is good. I will praise you in the presence of your saints." - Psalm 52:9
Permalink12/27/07
More Faith
I was thinking this morning about something I've heard Christians say in response to evolutionists and atheists many times now: "It takes more faith to believe in evolution or atheism than to believe in a god or even Jesus Christ."
And I realized something. That's completely false. Up until this morning, I thought it was true, because I'd never really thought about it before - but it's not true at all.
To be an atheist or evolutionist requires no real "faith" at all. Well, okay, so it requires believing in the evidences one finds in the world, but they wouldn't look at it that way. They look at it as, "Here is a fossil record, therefore evolution must be true." or even, "We've never seen God or any other supernatural phenomena, therefore it must not exist." They base everything off of what they see and don't see, and for the rest they just draw the best possible (completely secular) conclusion. It doesn't require faith. It's easy to believe.
But Christianity is different. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe in something that there are no evidences for: that Christ's death atoned for all sin, even yours and mine, and that His righteousness is given to all freely. You cannot see that. There is nothing to suggest in everyday life that death atones for sin. Heck, many don't even know what sin is. Or righteousness. Or what it means to be freely given.
We have to have a PERFECT faith in Christ Jesus as our savior - and we don't even fully comprehend what that means, much less are we capable of having a perfect faith in it!
To have faith in Christ crucified is the hardest thing of all. That is why it cannot be from us. It must be from Jesus. Jesus, the Man of Faith, gives us His faith. He gives it to us in our baptism into Him, in the Holy Absolution, and in His Supper. He strengthens it. He upholds it.
So again we have a paradox. It is simultaneously the hardest and yet easiest thing to be a Christian. It is the hardest because it must be a perfect faith in the One who died and rose again. It is the easiest because that faith is given freely to us in Christ's own righteousness; we cannot work for that faith, nor should we try.
Anyway, I think that the next time I hear someone say, "Believing in evolution requires more faith than believing in Jesus" I just might correct them. Because that's so not true.
11/15/07
Virtual Furniture Theft?
I thought this article was an interesting one.
What will they think of next?
11/07/07
The Child Shall Surely Die
A friend once asked me how God could possibly have let King David live. David was, after all, a scoundrel. He had multiple wives, he waged wars, and he slept with another man’s wife. My friend was particularly troubled by the account of Bathsheba. How could God forgive David for what he had done?
The answer is right there in the text. Nathan the prophet tells David that “the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” He was, of course, referring to David’s son born of Bathsheba – but through Christ, we can see the reference to Jesus, the Son of David, who would sacrifice Himself for David’s sin, so that David might live with God eternally. So the reader sees here not simply the wrath of God, nor the “unfairness” that David lives, but rather the true Master of Life: Jesus Christ who died on the cross. The passage is still a difficult one, but seen in Christ it comes to life and the reader sees the saving power of God through His Son for us all, no matter how wicked we may be.
10/16/07
Political Predictions of a Prophet (well.......)
I'm not a prophet - well, not yet, anyway ;-) - but I've been reading a lot of political stuff lately and here is my prediction for next year's election:
1. Hilary is going to get the Democratic nomination. Sorry, but Obama is (in many ways) more liberal than Hilary. Hilary also has the Clinton name behind her, and for whatever reason people really liked her husband. She's also the first woman who has a real shot at the presidency, and I don't think the Democrats would pass up that opportunity.
I do not mean this to sound as bad as it's going to, but at the moment, I also think a white woman would have a better chance at the presidency than a black man. There is just too much tension on the issue of race in our country (the media thrives on that tension - there's no way they're going to let it go away). It's just not going to happen, yet.
2. Giuliani is going to get the Republican nomination. He's just too popular not to.
Note: I know there is a small chance Fred Thompson could get the nomination, because his values are more Republican in nature. If he gets the nomination, he won't stand a chance winning the election, though - people hate Bush too much, and he's too much like Bush, and the media will make sure to draw all the parallels and connect all the dots just in case the American people can't do it for themselves. He can't win.
3. Giuliani will win the presidential election, because Hilary is too liberal, and Giuliani (while Republican) is still very different from Bush. He's not reeeeally Republican, but he's not reeeeeally Democrat, either.
My personal choice would be Fred Thompson. But like I said, there's no way he's going to get it. He's too much like Bush (who, by the way, I like in general - never quite understood all the fuss about him). Oh well. You win some, you lose some.
All of that said, I think it's going to be one really freaking close race (unless, of course, Thompson gets the nomination - in which case Hilary will win hands down, no questions asked, it won't even be funny). There will be a lot of talk about how they don't know whose going to be the next president, blah, blah, blah. And the media will push Hilary, and it will look like Hilary will probably pull ahead and oh my gosh she'll win it all! But then... it'll be Giuliani. And then for the next 50 years the radical feminists in America just won't shut up! Ahem. Yes, well. I shouldn't start complaining ahead of myself, should I?
Well, that's my prediction, anyway. Now we just get to wait a year to see how wrong I am!
:: Next Page >>