A Catholic name Nick has requested that I debate him via blog over the topic of Sola Fide - the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. The debate will begin this week, with contributions due at the end of each week.
The Topic:
Resolution: The Bible teaches Justification by Faith Alone.
Affirmed: Jeff
Denied: Nick
The Format:
Essays are 3,000 words maximum, posted publicly on our blogs by the end of each week (by midnight on Saturday). A 1 week grace period is given to each debater in the event their personal life wont let them get around to posting. Comment boxes are closed, except for the Concluding Essay.
Week1: Both sides present an Opening Essay.
Week2*: Both sides present a Rebuttal Essay.
Week2*: Both sides submit 5 Questions to the other person.
Week3: Both sides submit Answers to the questions.
Week4: Both sides submit a Concluding Essay.
Comments will be closed for all sections of the debate, save for the concluding essays.
I will add the links to each portion of the debate as they are posted:
Opening Essays: Affirmed / Denied
Rebuttal Essays: Affirmed / Denied
Questions: Affirmed / Denied
Answers: Affirmed / Denied
Concluding Essays: Affirmed / Denied
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Ezra Levant on the Ethics of the Oilsands
If we actually want to make the world a better place, a more moral place, the ethical thing to do is to pump as much oil as we possibly can out of the oil sands, knowing that every barrel we produce in Canada displaces a fascist barrel from Saudi Arabia, a misogynist barrel from Iran and a dictatorial barrel from Venezuela.Ezra Levant is my new BFF - a conservative champion in a sea of liberal propaganda.
(http://ezralevant.com/2010/09/first-press-coverage-of-ethica.html)
Self-Help Books as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
I came across a book in the King's Bookstore entitled "Three Steps to Getting the Relationship YOU Want."
That would be the problem, wouldn't it? If your relationship sucks, it's probably because
Both are lies. So if you are the type of person who would buy such a book, you probably will not ever have a successful relationship, because it isn't quick or easy, and most of all it's about self-giving and not self-fulfillment: learning to esteem another person's needs as more important than your own.
That would be the problem, wouldn't it? If your relationship sucks, it's probably because
- you are self-centered, and
- you think there's a quick, 3-step fix
Both are lies. So if you are the type of person who would buy such a book, you probably will not ever have a successful relationship, because it isn't quick or easy, and most of all it's about self-giving and not self-fulfillment: learning to esteem another person's needs as more important than your own.
Needless to say, the book in question now lies buried underneath a stack of other books, so that you won't find it unless you are looking very hard for it.
I Wonder if THIS Will be Mentioned...
And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” (Gen. 3:8-10, emphasis mine)What is the root of fear? Sin.
Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, sin enters the world, and as a result, they experience fear.
I'll be waiting for someone at the conference to mention that fear is the result of sin, and that the remedy for sin is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
Interdisciplinary Studies Conference Tomorrow...
Tomorrow is the semi-annual Interdisciplinary Studies (I.S.) Conference at King's.
The conference markets itself as "an exploration of a particular topic from multiple perspectives." In my experience, however, it generally takes the form of examining a left-wing issue from a left-wing perspective. Somehow, no matter what the topic of the conference, the themes of climate change, poverty, homelessness and war always come to dominate the discussion. In the words of a former fellow student, one particular conference resembled "a left-wing political rally from the '60's". Well said.
The particular conference this student referred to was the first one I attended, in the Fall of 2008. It was called Invisible Dignity; the premise being that discrimination, poverty, etc. cause a person's inherent human dignity to become invisible to others. One speaker at this conference, Dennis Edney, introduced the University-College to the issues surrounding Omar Khadr. The university almost immediately leapt on the Khadr bandwagon, campaigning for his repatriation to Canada. Now, Mr. Edney is one of Khadr's lawyer - a fact which often seems to be forgotten in all this fuss. Was the picture of Khadr painted for me and my fellow students the whole picture? Hard to say, because no one bothered to check up on the facts. Instead, they accepted this lawyer's statements as the whole truth.
Next came the Truth and Reconciliation conference, concerning the Indian Residential School system in Canada. Now, in this case the topic of the conference was verifiable historical fact - there were residential schools, and the students did endure the abuse of being forcibly taken from their families in order to become Anglicized. I learned a lot of vital history concerning Aboriginal relations. But, the conference seemed to be trying to hard to pander to Aboriginal people - and the Aboriginal story never stayed the same. On the one hand, some said that financial compensation from the government was necessary so the government could demonstrate that it took the victims seriously; on the other hand, others said that the government was trying to buy it's way out of responsibility by simply "throwing money" at the victims in the hope they'd go away. On the one hand, some thought the Prime Minister should offer an official apology for the schools; when such an apology came forth, some condemned it as mere words. There was, of course, no hint that Aboriginals could also be responsible for the strained relations with the government today - it was all the white man's fault.
The next conference was on technology. That's all that I know. I was on the worship team that played during the conference, and thus I did not have to complete the assignment (and therefore I didn't have to attend the conference the parts I was playing for). That was by far my favourite conference thus far.
Finally, the most recent conference this past January concerned homelessness. A worthy topic, to be sure. But the definition of "homeless" was greatly stretched to accommodate refugees from war, climate change, and various other points on the liberal agenda. Of course, homeless people were, one and all, helpless victims of "the system"; and of course, the government was responsible to step in to rectify the situation.
BUT I think that the conference which starts tomorrow might actually be worthwhile. Not because there will be a lack of leftist propaganda. It will be good simply because the topic which cannot possibly be completely messed up, however bell-bottomed the politics may be.
The subject is fear. As I perused the schedule of lectures, I noticed that, true to form, there is a very leftist spin being put on fear: xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia... but it looks as if there will be enough food for thought to stimulate even the interest of a hard-nosed Conservative such as myself.
Even better - I've learned two things about the 3-page paper that is required to get the credit for the conference (it's a course, and you need six terms worth of it for any degree program at King's. I find that absolutely ridiculous, but I also digress):
The conference markets itself as "an exploration of a particular topic from multiple perspectives." In my experience, however, it generally takes the form of examining a left-wing issue from a left-wing perspective. Somehow, no matter what the topic of the conference, the themes of climate change, poverty, homelessness and war always come to dominate the discussion. In the words of a former fellow student, one particular conference resembled "a left-wing political rally from the '60's". Well said.
The particular conference this student referred to was the first one I attended, in the Fall of 2008. It was called Invisible Dignity; the premise being that discrimination, poverty, etc. cause a person's inherent human dignity to become invisible to others. One speaker at this conference, Dennis Edney, introduced the University-College to the issues surrounding Omar Khadr. The university almost immediately leapt on the Khadr bandwagon, campaigning for his repatriation to Canada. Now, Mr. Edney is one of Khadr's lawyer - a fact which often seems to be forgotten in all this fuss. Was the picture of Khadr painted for me and my fellow students the whole picture? Hard to say, because no one bothered to check up on the facts. Instead, they accepted this lawyer's statements as the whole truth.
Next came the Truth and Reconciliation conference, concerning the Indian Residential School system in Canada. Now, in this case the topic of the conference was verifiable historical fact - there were residential schools, and the students did endure the abuse of being forcibly taken from their families in order to become Anglicized. I learned a lot of vital history concerning Aboriginal relations. But, the conference seemed to be trying to hard to pander to Aboriginal people - and the Aboriginal story never stayed the same. On the one hand, some said that financial compensation from the government was necessary so the government could demonstrate that it took the victims seriously; on the other hand, others said that the government was trying to buy it's way out of responsibility by simply "throwing money" at the victims in the hope they'd go away. On the one hand, some thought the Prime Minister should offer an official apology for the schools; when such an apology came forth, some condemned it as mere words. There was, of course, no hint that Aboriginals could also be responsible for the strained relations with the government today - it was all the white man's fault.
The next conference was on technology. That's all that I know. I was on the worship team that played during the conference, and thus I did not have to complete the assignment (and therefore I didn't have to attend the conference the parts I was playing for). That was by far my favourite conference thus far.
Finally, the most recent conference this past January concerned homelessness. A worthy topic, to be sure. But the definition of "homeless" was greatly stretched to accommodate refugees from war, climate change, and various other points on the liberal agenda. Of course, homeless people were, one and all, helpless victims of "the system"; and of course, the government was responsible to step in to rectify the situation.
BUT I think that the conference which starts tomorrow might actually be worthwhile. Not because there will be a lack of leftist propaganda. It will be good simply because the topic which cannot possibly be completely messed up, however bell-bottomed the politics may be.
The subject is fear. As I perused the schedule of lectures, I noticed that, true to form, there is a very leftist spin being put on fear: xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia... but it looks as if there will be enough food for thought to stimulate even the interest of a hard-nosed Conservative such as myself.
Even better - I've learned two things about the 3-page paper that is required to get the credit for the conference (it's a course, and you need six terms worth of it for any degree program at King's. I find that absolutely ridiculous, but I also digress):
- You need only prove you attended enough of the conference to grasp one key concept and blither semi-intelligently about it for 3 pages, and
- You can vehemently disagree with that same key concept (thereby calling the whole conference into question) and still pass the assignment.
So, I don't need to be at the whole conference. Almost half of the student body sleeps in on the second day of the conference anyway. I suspect that I could write my paper right now without attending the conference, by disagreeing with a position that I can reasonably assume the keynote speaker is going to take on an issue. For example, it will probably be a pro-gay conference; I could write about a biblical stance on homosexuality for 3 pages and take the next two days off. But, since that's slightly dishonest, I'm instead going to sleep in both days and attend the conference in the afternoons - this will yield ample material to write the assignment with.
In fact, since Mr. Dennis Edney is back to rally the troops for Omar Khadr, who is currently on trial for his alleged war crimes, a friend and I have jokingly agreed to write anti-Khadr sentiments whatever form the conference takes. So, in a sense, my paper is already written. Maybe I could charge a fee to write I.S. papers for other people - carve out a little business niche for myself, as it were.
Oh wait - that's dishonest too...
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
"Not My Problem"
I have a job on-campus at King's, as a bookstore assistant. So, I am working extra hours the next two weeks as the textbook rush takes place.
At the same time, my vocal instructor is trying to set up lesson times for the year. She gives two lessons a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays (only), from 11:30-3:30 (only). And my schedule on those days was booked so tight that I could only do lessons between 1 and 2-'o-clock. Unfortunately, today (Thursday) I was scheduled to work from 9:30 till 2.
Quite a dilemma - my boss needed her employee and my instructor needed her student at the same time. I couldn't find anyone to cover the shift and there were no additional lesson times that my instructor could provide.
I was just at the point of getting incredibly stressed out over being torn between two people whom I need to please, when I had an epiphany: this isn't my problem. It isn't my fault that my boss scheduled me to work through a class. It isn't my fault that my instructor has such a tight schedule. So, after I had exhausted all my own resources, I suggested my instructor telephone my boss. She acquiesced.
I was preparing to go to work this morning when I got a telephone call - my instructor. She said she had essentially forced my boss to give me the extra hour off, and though my boss was not very happy with her, she had finally given in. Her parting advice to me was to "be extra nice" for my boss.
5 minutes later, I walked into work and was informed by my boss that my instructor "was unwilling to change" and that I could have the hour off. (Though she wondered aloud how my instructor's schedule could be so inflexible on the second day of classes). She was good enough not to take it out on me, but her smile belied her frustration with the turn of events.
The end results:
At the same time, my vocal instructor is trying to set up lesson times for the year. She gives two lessons a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays (only), from 11:30-3:30 (only). And my schedule on those days was booked so tight that I could only do lessons between 1 and 2-'o-clock. Unfortunately, today (Thursday) I was scheduled to work from 9:30 till 2.
Quite a dilemma - my boss needed her employee and my instructor needed her student at the same time. I couldn't find anyone to cover the shift and there were no additional lesson times that my instructor could provide.
I was just at the point of getting incredibly stressed out over being torn between two people whom I need to please, when I had an epiphany: this isn't my problem. It isn't my fault that my boss scheduled me to work through a class. It isn't my fault that my instructor has such a tight schedule. So, after I had exhausted all my own resources, I suggested my instructor telephone my boss. She acquiesced.
I was preparing to go to work this morning when I got a telephone call - my instructor. She said she had essentially forced my boss to give me the extra hour off, and though my boss was not very happy with her, she had finally given in. Her parting advice to me was to "be extra nice" for my boss.
5 minutes later, I walked into work and was informed by my boss that my instructor "was unwilling to change" and that I could have the hour off. (Though she wondered aloud how my instructor's schedule could be so inflexible on the second day of classes). She was good enough not to take it out on me, but her smile belied her frustration with the turn of events.
The end results:
- I was able to attend my voice lesson (making my instructor happy)
- I worked for as long as I could (making my boss happy)
- My boss became frustrated with my instructor (and vice-versa). This is as it should be. Again, the scheduling difficulties were not my own. So by letting them fight it out amongst themselves, the frustration really remained where it should always have been - between the two of them.
This is something I have learned over the last few years at university. It is easy to automatically accept responsibility for scheduling conflicts which were created by two professors (or a professor and an employer) imposing two mutually exclusive time constraints. It actually took a great amount of courage (for me, at least) to even suggest to my instructor that she should talk to my employer directly, because that seemed like it was passing off my responsibility to someone else.
But really, when I thought about it, the inverse was true: after doing everything I could on my own, I was giving her back responsibility that was now hers. It is very freeing thing to be able to say, with confidence, "that is not my problem." I'm not very good at it, but I am getting better.
I believe it is God's earnest desire that we seek to please Him alone. I did my best in this situation to give due respect to the authority of my instructor and my employer both, in a way that would please God. But when I could not please them both, I let them sort it out. It is not important that they like each other; but it is important that I do my utmost to please them both. In this case, paradoxically, that required me to stop doing things on my own and request that someone else do it for me.
It doesn't feel like it, but I suppose that that was humility. Perhaps this was even a parable for salvation itself - to be saved of your sin is ultimately to transfer responsibility for your sin to Christ, and take on His righteousness. To try to do it yourself may feel noble, but that approach is ultimately firmly rooted in pride. So too, I suppose, is stress. So when I'm stressed, what I ultimately need is to be saved from my pride.
In moments of stress, may the Lord have mercy on your soul and mine.
Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, fear Him who destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. (Matthew 6:33)
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The Paradox of Humble, yet Insistent Prayer
On Tuesday, the readings for the Daily Audio Bible included Job 40 and Psalm 43.
What really struck me was the contrast offered by these two passages when read side-by-side. On the one hand, in Job 40, Job is in the midst of being lectured to by God. He had been expressing a desire to put God on trial throughout the book; all of the sudden, God speaks from the whirlwind and sets the record straight - Job is the one on trial (Job 38:1-3).
God recites a list of His mighty actions and wisdom. When Job finally is given the opportunity to get a word in edgewise, all he can say is:
But then, in Psalm 43, the Psalmist has this to say to the same God:
This is the paradox that the Calvinist (read "Christian) carries with him always: On the one hand, God is too awesome for words, and His ways are past finding out (Rom. 11:33). Sometimes it is best to shut-up and acknowledge that God gets His way and that any problem we have with His judgments is ultimately petty and pathetic. On the other hand, Scriptures cites examples of saints who prayed with such insistent language: Wake up, God, and come to my aid!
In our prayers we should be deeply humble, yet insistent on what we desire from God - a paradox.
What really struck me was the contrast offered by these two passages when read side-by-side. On the one hand, in Job 40, Job is in the midst of being lectured to by God. He had been expressing a desire to put God on trial throughout the book; all of the sudden, God speaks from the whirlwind and sets the record straight - Job is the one on trial (Job 38:1-3).
God recites a list of His mighty actions and wisdom. When Job finally is given the opportunity to get a word in edgewise, all he can say is:
Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spken once and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further. (Job 40:3-5)Job says (in the original Hebrew) "Oops." In God's presence, he feels small, and decides it's best if he does not complain against God anymore. He puts his hand over his mouth.
But then, in Psalm 43, the Psalmist has this to say to the same God:
Awake! Why are you sleeping, O Lord? Rouse Yourself! Do not reject us forever! Why do you hide Your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression? (Psalm 43:23-26)Wow. The psalmist accuses God of sleeping, being too lazy to come to their help. He accuses God of hiding, and of forgetting. Now to say that to another human would likely be considered rude - how much more to say it to the Most High?
This is the paradox that the Calvinist (read "Christian) carries with him always: On the one hand, God is too awesome for words, and His ways are past finding out (Rom. 11:33). Sometimes it is best to shut-up and acknowledge that God gets His way and that any problem we have with His judgments is ultimately petty and pathetic. On the other hand, Scriptures cites examples of saints who prayed with such insistent language: Wake up, God, and come to my aid!
In our prayers we should be deeply humble, yet insistent on what we desire from God - a paradox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
