H  O  M  E          
Theological, Doctrinal, and Spiritual Musing - and whatever other else is on my mind when I notice that I haven't posted in a while.
  • - Endorsed
  • - Indifferent
  • - Contested
I Affirm This
The Nashville Statement
Daniel of Doulogos Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
The Buzz

Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich

His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole

[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train

This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos

Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead

There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
Email Me
Monday, August 29, 2005
A Sad Combination.
Axiom Journey Disk Brake Pannier Rack
In April of this year my doctor had told me that I needed to lose weight. I had already been planning on purchasing a mountain bike to ride to and from work each day - so this cemented the notion in my head.

The same month I purchased a brand new 2005 GIANT™ Rincon™ - an entry level mountain bike. Not your K-mart special, but the kind you would buy at a cycling shop. It ran me about $600 Canadian after taxes - but I viewed it as an investment. I let the fellow talk me into a 17" frame because he said it would be more comfortable to ride. The bike was otherwise fantastic. It was a nice smooth ride, quiet, and met my every performance expectation. I should have gone for the 19" frame in hindsight, but I was not complaining.

Now, I was careful in selecting the bike - I wasn't interested in looks, I am too old to care really, I was interested in function - I wanted fenders and a saddle bag rack (referred to as a 'pannier' rack hereafter). Nothing could be simpler. They put both the fenders and the rack on the bike at the shop, and I never had a moment of distress with either of them.

On July 14th my new bike was stolen, I had already put almost 900 miles on it - and while I disappointed to lose 'her' - I had long since given up on treating the bike as a vanity item - it was a commuting tool, and it's absence sent me to the bike store immediately to replace it. I decided that I would bump up a category - the Rincon™ was a great bike, but I thought that having this opportunity, I should jump up one notch to a GIANT™ Yukon™ otherwise I would later regret having not done so. The Yukon™ had a few advantages over the Rincon™ - particularly the disk brakes. It had some nicer hardware and a few drilled out things to make the bike somewhat lighter, but the biggest difference was the fact that the brakes were of the disk variety instead of the standard plunger style.

My father has in his life passed on some tidbits of wisdom to me, and one such tidbit has to do with purchasing newer technology. His philosophy is sound - don't be the first person to buy newer technology - it usually takes them years to get the thing right. My father still won't buy a car with front wheel drive - but that is another story altogether. The important thing to note is that the reason plunger brakes haven't changed all that much in the past ten years is because that style of brake has reached a place where it works as designed, is entirely reliable, efficient, and even cheap to maintain because it is the common standard.

Disk brakes on bicycles are not the common standard, but are restricted to the higher end bikes. That means that all the additional gear one might purchase for their mountain bike (such as pannier racks, fenders, etc.) is readily cut and fit to non-disk brake bikes.

Here is where my post really begins. The Yukon itself is a great bike, but as there are so very few mountain bikes with disk brakes this year - there are likewise very few pannier racks that will fit a mtn bike with disk brakes. One company, Axiom, has modified some other design in order to make it 'disk brake compatible' - this is the image you see at the top - the Axiom Journey rack. When I bought the bike I phoned the store up, told them to put a rack and fenders on a red Yukon, and I would be down in an hour to pick it up. The only rack they had for disk brakes was this particular one - and there was no way they could put fenders on the bike (sigh).

The rack, to say the least, has not performed to my expectations. The plain-Jane cheapo rack that I had put on my old bike never gave me a lick of trouble - but this rack was so delicate, you had to set it up just right (which was no small task) , and even set up correctly it moved around, squeaked like a banshee, and a week couldn't go by when some crucial bolt or piece didn't fall off it. At first it restricted the movement of my rear brake. Once that was solved it started to lose bolts. Lose bolts I say, because there was no way to really secure it tightly to the frame. The resulting play between frame and pannier continually worked the thing loose. I had to tighten it all the time - but even doing so I eventually lost a bolt, then another. In the end, I became so frustrated with it I just took it off and began to use a back pack.

So I thought I would write a 'review' about how well the 2005 GIANT™ YUKON™ works with the Axiom Journey disk brake pannier rack. On a scale of one to ten, I give it a one.

Perhaps the rack works well on other cycles - I cannot say for sure, but if you have a 19" Yukon™ frame with the disk brakes - stay away from this rack.
posted by Daniel @ 8:57 AM   2 comment(s)
Friday, August 26, 2005
Knowledge puffeth up.
In reading a clip over at Centurion's blog I was reminded of my old university days.

Back in university (before I came to Christ) it was the common practice of everyone I knew (myself being no exception) to spend our leisure time in exalted and philosophical debate - during which time we could showcase the various tidbits of knowledge we had picked up, and extol their worth in the grandest language we were able to muster. In this way we hoped to demonstrate our intellectual superiority - or at the very least, or intellectual right to assume a place in the grand halls of our dear old university. It was quite important to each of us that we appear learned and erudite to all our colleagues. In this pursuit our vocabularies swelled, and we sought at every opportunity to demonstrate their massive girth.After university I attended a technical college - and the atmosphere was entirely different. Here successful communication didn't involve lofty language - but rather successful communication was gauged on how easily understood one was. Direct speech, without all the glitter, was preferred.

Between the two experiences I began to understand that any writer can express themselves using technical language - but only truly talented writers can express themselves in common language.

As a musician I am not impressed by the technical brilliance of a movement - I am impressed by the art of the movement - does it speak to me, does it move me? Or is it simply an articulate expression of timing, tone, and cadence? Anyone can learn to master an instrument - but few people can learn to express themselves through an instrument.

In this same way I am impressed not by large vocabularies and complex sentences - they simply tell me that the author has some base proficiency in the things he is discussing. But when a writer can explain a complex issue in a way that a child could understand - then I am in the presence of brilliance - and I am rightly impressed.

Knowledge of a subject can puff up discussion about that subject - because part of the effort in discussing the subject is being spent on making oneself look knowledgeable. In the same way that yeast puffs up bread - lofty language can puff up a dialog or treatise - adding empty words for the sake of the author's erudite posture.

What a great exercise it is to go back over our own work and remove all loftiness! How we shudder to replace 'insouciantly' with 'light heartedly' - we want people to know how brilliant we are!

Brother, brilliance cannot be hidden by simple text, nor can it be counterfeited by exalted speech.
posted by Daniel @ 10:02 AM   0 comment(s)
Thursday, August 25, 2005
One of the things about blogging is that there are days - perhaps weeks when you really don't have anything new to say.

The academic inside me wants to wax eloquent but there is nothing going on to wax on about!

I will have to content myself with simply posting about nothing - a post that says "I am still here" - and little else.
posted by Daniel @ 12:47 PM   0 comment(s)
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Prayer Meeting Yesterday
Our pastor has been on holidays these past couple of weeks, which is why I was allowed to preach these past two Sundays. The other two deacons were each to lead one prayer meeting, but as it turns out, the deacon who was going to look after yesterday's prayer meeting had some other engagement, and so I was given the opportunity to lead the meeting. Praise the Lord for that.

One of the things we do at our prayer meetings is we pray for a specific country - each week we pray for a different country. Typically our former pastor (he is retired now, but still an active member in our congregation) selects a country from a book called
Operation World by Patrick Johnstone. Our former pastor however is likewise out of town - visiting family - so in keeping with our 'tradition' I quickly sought out the website for this ministry.

While the site does distinguish somewhat between Catholicism, evangelical Christianity it does so in a way that suggests all these are legitimate expressions of Christianity - which is my only beef. The site -is- however, a marvelous resource when it comes to praying for other countries.

The country we prayed for (August 17th) was Morocco. In a country with a population of nearly 30 million people, it is mind boggling to note that there were only about 1600 evangelical Christians (representing 11 denominations) to be found in the whole country. The site gave wonderful advice on how to pray - and I thought it was worth mentioning it in my blog.
posted by Daniel @ 4:13 PM   0 comment(s)
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Monday was my 13th Anniversary!
My wife and I celebrated our 13th Wedding Anniversary on Monday. Having preached on Sunday, I took the day off work to relax and simply spend time with my wife and family. It was a very nice time. My family had been camping this weekend at Sprucewoods provincial park (sounds like a golf course?) So I did not see them this weekend, which made Monday extra special.

We went out for supper at an Olive Garden franchise restaurant - and even though it was just another franchise the food was still quite good - though the noise level was too high for our liking. Never the less, it was a good time. It hardly seems like it has been thirteen years. One thing is certain, each year has been better than the previous - and we love each other more now than ever before. Praise the Lord for that!
posted by Daniel @ 12:07 PM   2 comment(s)
Sermon On Sunday
I had a wonderful opportunity to preach this past Sunday. I preached on Romans 5:12 - Romans 8:11. I think God's Spirit used the message to open some eyes, which is awesome, I am always amazed that God can use a schmoe like me!
posted by Daniel @ 12:05 PM   0 comment(s)
Friday, August 12, 2005
Why we Homeschool
My wife and I both came to the Lord as adults, prior to our children entering into the public school system. My wife used to work in the public school system as an Instructional Assistant. She worked in four or five schools before our first child came along.

One day, when our oldest was still two years old, I was trying to get him to say something correctly. His pronounciation was inarticulate, and I, as a first time father, was pressing the point far harder than was appropriate. My dear son was trying his hardest to please me, but the moment I heard an error in his inflection, or pronounciation, I interrupted him and said the word the right way. He tried to say it, and failed, and before he could finish saying it, I repeated it again. To my shame this continued until my wife finally stopped me. She made me listen to him, and notice that I was causing him to stutter.

No kidding. He was developing a stutter that was never there before, and it was obviously there because I had been pressing him so hard to speak perfectly.

My wife (gently as she could) then spoke the wisest words I have ever heard her or perhaps anyone, ever speak to me about my parenting. She said that if I backed away my current attempts to make my son the only perfectly articulate two year old on earth, he would likely be quite articulate at age 10. But if I continued to press him beyond his ability, I may have a 10 year old who has been scarred emotionally because of my unrealistic expectations, and who may even have a speech impediment because of -my- vanity.

The truth, when it is given in love, is very powerful. These words sank into my ears, and into my heart.

Did I want scholastic excellence for my son? Yes, of course. But was that the most important thing? I realized it wasn't. The most important thing to me was that my son inherited my love for the Lord. I wanted a boy with good character. Scholastics may make me proud for a season, but a good character would please me all my life.

Something changed that day in my parenting - and it changed eternally. The character of my children became more important to me than their scholastic acheivement. When I realized this, I became a homeschooler. Even if my wife and I were the worst homeschoolers in all history - at least we would have happy children who loved the Lord!

As it turns out of course, my wife is the perfect teacher for our children, and they have excelled in almost every way imaginable. God has honored our efforts to give him glory through bringing up our children in a way that gives Hm honor.

God bless our Homeschool!
posted by Daniel @ 3:53 PM   2 comment(s)
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Substitutionary Atonement vs. New Model Evangelicalism
Phil Johnson in his blog post, "New-model Christianity, or old-model heresy?" mentions an article by Robert Brow entitled "Evangelical Megashift" which describes some of the fallout from rejecting a "punitive" model of the atonement.

Robert Brow asks in the closing remarks of his article, whether this new model represents a "different gospel" - my opinion is that it goes one better, and presents an entirely different (and less than biblical) God! Given this a priori conclusion on my part, I would suspect that whatever 'gospel' is tacked on to this new image of God is likely going to inherit that same taint.

I say a different God, because ultimately the new model boils down to a god who is more loving than just. In the substitution model of the atonement, God is both loving and just - eternally and infinitely both - and I think this latter model agrees more with God as described in scripture, than the former.

Nevertheless, for those who are unfamiliar with the concept of substitution atonement, we turn to scripture. Isaiah 53:5 says, "he [the Messiah] was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (KJV) - here we see that the punishment received by Christ on the cross came about because of our sins, and that by His sacrifice our spiritual "waywardness" will be healed.

Likewise, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 says, "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. " - Here we note that the death that Christ died was supposed to be ours - that is, the substitution nature of his sacrifice is indirectly highlighted.

1 Peter 2:24 again reiterates, "who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed." We see the same message; Christ took our sins to the cross in His own body and bore the stripes that were meant for us - this he did for our spiritual healing.

At heart the heart of this doctrine is this foundation stone:

  • God cannot be just if He punishes one act of treason (sin) but fails to punish another treasonous act (another sin). In order for God to be a 'just' God He must punish every treason.

Anselm of Canterbury correctly reasoned that Christ's sinlessness was not 'meritorious' - that is, God was not obligated in any way to Christ on account of Christ's sinlessness (consider the parable of the worthless servant). Anselm further reasoned however, that there -was- merit in Christ's offering Himself for others, and that since Christ didn't need this merit, it could be passed on to others who did.

Hogo Gortius expanded this understanding in his "governmental model" - observing that by providing His own (God's the Father's own) sacrifice (that being Jesus Christ) God could be the justifier of fallen humanity while maintaining his own 'just' standing.

Men like John Calvin and John Miley honed the basic principles, highlighting the propitiatory nature of the atonement - that is, that God's wrath against sinners is just, and that Christ bore that wrath to satisfy this requirement - that is, we were justified when Christ bore our sins on the cross. The notion of merit evolved into grace - that is Christ death didn't produce merit, but was the channel for God's grace. Today we call this apology the "substitution" or "penal" or "punitive" model of the atonement.

In this 'model' God is the eternal and just judge and we are guilty. Our crime is high treason, and the punishment for this crime is eternal damnation.

Note: We reason that God is infinite, as such no sin that we commit grows dim in God's memory - but our treasons - every one of them, are eternally and ever before the fullness of God's awareness for all eternity - God can neither forget or ignore our sins, as His by his very nature He is 'condemned' as it were, to live in the continuing and eternal knowledge of our treason - never once growing weaker or dissipating as it might were God simply a temporal creature like ourselves.

Given then that God can never for one moment - throughout all eternity - forget even one treasonous act the only fitting and just punishment is an eternity in hell - let there be no squeamishness here, because God Himself deserves justice in the matter of our sin.
In the same way that Open Theism can be boiled down to a flagrant theology based solely on the rejection of predestination, likewise, this new model is a simply a rejection of God's justices.

There is no room it seems, in our post modern palsied culture, for absolute justice. God must be the God of our culture - and our culture rejects the notion not only of a just God, but also of the sinfulness of sin.

posted by Daniel @ 8:23 AM   2 comment(s)
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Dental instruments
A few months back I had the pleasure of going out for lunch with one of my co-workers. As it turns out, a local proprietorship was going out of business and in perusing the sale items I came across some dental tools - those wonderfully ornate and twisted metal picks that dentists use to fiddle with your teeth? They were on sale for a ridiculous price - like a dollar or two, and I determined to purchase them for the novelty of it - thinking to myself at the time - why should I pay someone else to clean my teeth?

Well, as it turned out, home dentistry is not really my forté, so they have been sitting in my desk at work doing nothing since that day - that is, sitting and doing nothing until this morning!

This morning one of my co-workers (who happens to be a highschool friend of my wife's) came to my desk in a frustrated state because she had wanted to take her watch band apart to see how it worked (or something like that) and now could not put it back together.

You can imagine my joy (well, if you knew my quirky sense of humor, you could imagine my joy) when I looked soberly at her problem, and silently, and with professional dignity, reached into my desk and pulled out an assorted collection picks and whatnot - then selecting an appropriate one from the bunch, nonchalantly and with profound celerity, repaired her wayward watchband.
I don't know if most people can appreciate this sort of humor, but I just find it funny when someone comes to you with some obscure task that has given them so much grief and frustration that they actually approach you about it to enlist your help (not unlike searching the whole house over for your keys or wallet - and then, in frustrated hysteria, opening the fridge to make sure that you didn't somehow put it in there - that is the extreme frustration I am speaking of). Now when this flustered person came to my desk, it was apparent that she was resigned already to her fate - her watch band was broken and really, she was asking for help out of that sort of desperation that doesn't honestly anticipate deliverance.

So as she begins to tell the tale to my expressionless facade, I meekly reach over and pull out the perfect tools for the job, and in seconds fix her problem, never once cracking any sort of 'this is so out of the ordinary" expression or explaining why it is that a computer programmer has dental tools on hand, and is apparently skilled in their use.

Such humor, to me is like a word spoken well at an appropriate time - it is just sweet.
posted by Daniel @ 1:36 PM   0 comment(s)
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Howard Phillip Lovecraft
H.P. Lovecraft was an early twentieth century writer (20 August 1890–15 March 1937) who wrote many ghastly tales centering on other worldly entities and otherwise freakishly disturbing, mystical paranormia. So unique was the niche that he carved for himself, that he more or less created his own genre.

I began to read his stuff when I was a young and impressionable lad, before I knew the Lord, and while I haven't spent anytime in the last decade reading anything of his, I still recall much of what I had read.

Of particular note was his C'thuulian mythology - a profoundly dark, powerful and utterly foreign pantheon of entities so alien to humanity that rather than spend much time describing them, Lovecraft instead describes those who have had the misfortune of seeing such a thing as quivering in a mess gibbering to themselves because of the sanity annihilating vision that their feeble minds have taken in and are unable to deal with.

Now, had you grown up on this stuff, you recognize the name of C'thuulu right away - it was one of the big bad nasties in many a tale. He was never the entity that showed up, but seemed invariably to be the one everyone was concerned would show up - and likewise was the one that the crazed cultists in these genre stories would always be trying to open a portal to bring in.

So it was with some mirth today that I discovered there is a Cthuugle.com. It just tickled me I guess - I am no fan of his anymore - I certainly wouldn't want my children to read any of his short stories - yet I did find it amusing that some fan made a search engine for his stuff and called it Cthuugle.

The sad thing was that no one in my office has any idea who Lovecraft was - so I couldn't share the humor of it with anyone.

So I blogged about it.
posted by Daniel @ 3:56 PM   0 comment(s)
Monday, August 08, 2005
Marriage and Divorce.
One devastating side effect of postmodern philosophy on our culture is its effect on marriage and divorce. In the name of tolerance, it has become vogue to remove moral imposition wherever it may be found. Good gravy, we don't want to impose our subjective morality upon anyone else's subjective morality - that would be intolerant!

Today, people divorce one another because they find the marriage unprofitable. Not necessarily money wise either - perhaps they are not getting as much attention as the expected. Perhaps they are not getting as much excitement as they feel they should. Perhaps they aren't being made happy enough by the marriage - whatever the case, the overwhelming opinion is that unless the marriage is profiting you in some way, you have every right to dissolve it. Adultery is no longer taboo, but just one of many reasons for divorce - and even if it is the reason, so what? It isn't like you were doing anything out of the ordinary.

Unless a person is steeped in the word of God, they will take their moral direction from the society in which they live. It is a relative scale too - the most 'moral' person adheres to the highest ideals promoted by the society in which they find themselves and the least moral person does not adhere to the standards set up society. In societies where Christianity has had influence, the morality of the society may somewhat resemble the morality of the bible - but as that society loses its Christian influence, so too, the moral similarity is lost.

"Post Christian" North American society is working hard to lose every ounce of Christian morality that has managed to hold influence in the past - such that what once was considered morally despicable (adultery) is now considered a morally inert relational inconvenience. We console ourselves throughout this moral decay with a philosophy that no doubt was authored by Satan himself - we reminding ourselves that we are only human; we are insignificant and powerless in the grand scheme.

So it is that divorce has become acceptable, and even expected.

Bible believing Christians however must deal with the fall-out of this post modern thinking. What do you tell a new born believer who has been through three marriages before they came to the Lord and now wants to embark on another?

The bible is clear - God hates divorce, and only allows it when one of the couple commits adultery, or, in the case of a married couple where one becomes a believer - if the unbelieving spouse of that believer chooses to walk away from the marriage on account of that believer's faith - then divorce is allowable.

That means that even if a person is divorced through the current legal system - God doesn't consider them divorced unless there was adultery, or the case of an unbelieving spouse leaving a believer. In God's eyes, regardless of any legal paper we might possess to the contrary - that couple is still married, and remains married and obligated to one another until such time as one of them commits adultery - at which time the other may choose to dissolve the marriage.

I will write more on this.
posted by Daniel @ 4:46 PM   0 comment(s)
Go and learn what this means.
I had the privilege of preaching to my home congregation this passed Sunday.

The message was from Matthew, where Christ has once again upset the Scribes and Pharisees - this time by going in and eating with tax collectors and sinners. Christ's reply begins with an argument from the lesser to the greater – a typically Jewish way of teaching. He was saying that he hung around sinners for the same reason a doctor hung around patients. His point was that the Son of God hadn’t come for righteous people, but for sinners.

But in between these two thoughts ( the lesser: physician/patients; and the greater: Christ/sinners ) Jesus says, “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice” – and it was on this intermediary text that I preached this past Sunday.

The word translated as ‘mercy’ in the NKJV and KJV is the Hebrew word ‘Khesed.’ Our lexicon shows us that the word is typically translated as ‘lovingkindness,’ of simply as ‘kindness’ and even as ‘loyalty.’

Following the etymology of the word, we see that it entered into the English language as a transliterated French word: ‘merci’ – which means “thanks” today, but meant ‘reward,’ ‘gift’ or even ‘kindness’ at the time. One can see from the way the word evolved in the French language something of the way it would have been used in the English at the time.

I typically don’t play with Shakespearean English when I have a lexicon, but I dwell here for those people who grew up on King James English in the bible, and have historically understood this verse verbatim – that is, that God desires compassion rather than sacrifice. We go through the word exercise to show why the King James Version reads the way it does. It is an entirely accurate rendering if one were to read it with the understanding of word use at the time.

So putting it all together we see that God desires ‘something’ that (were there an English word for it) would mean a sort of loving and kind thankfulness” – this is a description of a sort of loyalty that one finds in loving marriages or between parents and their young children. God desires -that- sort of thing from us.

We must also look at what is meant by ‘God desires.’

Without going too deep into it, the meaning here is that God takes joy or pleasure in something – not that God has a need or want – but rather the English is just describing in as few words as possible that God takes more joy in one thing than the other – that is, that God is more pleased by thankful and loving loyalty than He is by the sacrificial keeping of the law.

Now the contrast isn’t in the keeping of the law verses not keeping the law – it is a contrast of motives. God takes joy in a heart that belongs to Him rather than a heart that attempts to placate or pacify Him.

My message turned at that point to the question – Why was Christ teaching this doctrine to the Pharisees at that time – right in the middle of saying I came to sinners? I believe that Christ was giving them the means to overcome their legalistic hang-ups. They embraced a rigid ‘external’ obedience to the law of Moses and in their zealous pursuit of righteousness based on the law – they were missing the new covenant entirely. They didn’t comprehend the purpose of the law, and it was this rigid mindset that Jesus was attempting to jar them free from.

In the closing remarks a plea was made to seek Christ through faith, and not through righteous works of the law. I know that there are many in my congregation who do not understand the power of grace, and therefore continue to attempt to please God through their own efforts.

We are acceptable to God -in- the beloved, not because of our works of righteousness (which are as filthy rags to God) but solely and only because we are in Christ. This will be (Lord willing) the topic of next weeks sermon.
posted by Daniel @ 11:21 AM   0 comment(s)
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Born of Grace Ministries R.I.P.
R.I.P. stands for Rest in Peace.

It was the typical tombstone saying of many a comic book and
Ripley's believe it or not excerpt. It has become a convention in the English speaking world to associate the acronym with the demise or ceasation of something.

In this case, one of the message boards that I frequent has ceased to be - and so the hackneyed moniker is appended to satisify the need for a title for this post.

I liked that board though - mostly because there were a number of like minded believers on it. No much by way of debate - excepting the occasional one between
Bryan and myself. I have no thirst for debate however, so these usually ended quickly enough. Thank the Lord for people like Bryan though - they really force you to articulate exactly what you believe - and that is a good thing.

I will miss that old board, and the people that posted there.
posted by Daniel @ 4:21 PM   0 comment(s)
Previous Posts
Atom Feed
Atom Feed
Creative Commons License
Text posted on this site
is licensed under a
Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5