Thesis Statement of Hebrews... By An Eight-Year Old

Okay, so the title above isn't exactly the truth, but it's close.

Sometime in April for our morning Bible study we started going through the theology-rich (and big-worded) Bible book titled "Hebrews". As of Day 2 something had to change. Apparently it was making everyone under the age of 36 cranky.

The Lord gave me the idea of making it a bit more enjoyable and engaging by having a different family member draw a picture of the main theme of each chapter each day. Some days it took more than one day to get through those chapters though. Some days it took more than one day to draw the picture.

After we finished drawing pictures of each chapter we used a method I learned in Bible college in which the main themes of each section are pulled together to make one theme of larger sections. Then  those large sections are pulled together to summarize the focus on even larger passages (one or two chapters) and so on until eventually one single full-letter-summarizing sentence is formed. It's actually really helpful in aiding good interpretation of the Bible. It keeps everything in context.

Here's our results. The first picture is, well, our pictures. Yes, Chapter 6 is about pizza, Chapter 7 is about babies and Chapter 8 is about monkeys.















This one is us trying to pull the themes together, plus a little nasty glare.

The third is the thesis statement that Nori made on her own. I couldn't have done any better.

So I say, not bad. It was definitely worth the two months we spent getting up and at 'em each morning at 7. I encourage all parents to carve out some time every day to spend together around the word. It has done wonders in our family. Not that it's all roses at 7 am, but I've found a little crankiness does wonders for growing us in how to show patience and grace to each other.

I doubt anyone else would get what we got based on the pictures, though.

Someone please give me advice on how to talk Christian out of wanting to do the book of the Revelation next.

That's Just Funny.

Just sharing some quotes from an online article...

"China bluntly criticized the United States... saying the "good old days" of borrowing were over."

... I wonder how that is said in Cantonese.  I thought that was an American idiom.

"China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency."

... this one is just great!  This horse is dead already, but why are in huge debt to a communist country who is our largest enemy at this point in time?

... What's that?  China is pointing their finger at this situation for support for a global reserve currency.  Now that's something the Anti-christ could use!

"China scorned the United States for its "debt addiction"..."

... Whatever!  Oh, wait.  I agree with this one.  But honestly, what are we really going to do about it?

"[China] urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure."

... I'll bet China would appreciate us cutting our military expenditure.

... I actually agree with cutting a huge amount of our social welfare expenditure, but isn't this coming from a communist country?  I'm confused.

"Obama called on Congress to back measures to give tax relief to the middle class, extend jobless benefits and pass long-delayed international trade pacts."

... Nothing new from the President.  Give more money away in hopes that people will spend, spend, spend!  That will help!  I'm just saying how about we go for a healthy, stable economy?  I'd prefer thrift over huge investment growth.

... How about we stop paying people who are out of a job?  Necessity is the mother of invention and I think people will be much more motivated to come up with ways to make money when Uncle Sam isn't footing the bill.

"India's finance minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters: "There is no need to unnecessarily press the panic button.""

... Spiritually speaking, I think it's time we do that here in the U.S.

DMZ 2 - Confusious say, "Man who stand on toilet..."

This is a continuation of the DMZ tour that I took at the beginning of January.  Previously I had chronicled the railroad station built near the DMZ in anticipation of future peaceful reunification.  The last stop before leaving the station was the bathroom.  I expected nothing unusual, but since it is Korean, frankly, I should have known better.

Decoratively framed above each urinal were sayings of wisdom translated into Korean and English (at least, I think so - I'm 70% sure about one of the languages, anyway).  I was so impressed by the one that I had to ponder that I waited for an opportunity to photograph them all.  There's a lot of truth in them (I should say, in some of them; some I'm still trying to figure out).  So, I thought I would expound on what I pull from them - for what it's worth.

I thought this first one especially pertinent considering where I was standing at the point (no, not the bathroom; the DMZ).  I thought about the monetary cost incurred because of the anger of the North Korean governemnt.  N. Korea probably wouldn't see it that way, but I'm not them.  In addition to the financial burden, there has also been an even greater cost - human lives.  Sadly, this number will probably never bee known.  Even at this moment, people are likely dieing a N. Korean jail or from starvation or lack of medical treatment because of the management of the communist government.  The repeated news reports of violence between the North and South remind us that lives are still taken in combat here - the two nations are techincally still at war.

The emotional or spiritual anger is extremely costly, as well.  I believe (my unexpert opinion based on what I see and have experienced myself) that anger leads to serious anxiety and stress.  The "angry people" that I know are constantly fighting an uphill battle.  The anger poisons every relationship that they are in.  Additionally, the constant strain required to maintain that kind of self-righteousness is really more than we were designed to handle.  Ultimately, the true cost of clinging to the luxury of anger which survives due to unforgiveness is that of the relationship itself - an extremely sad, but completely avoidable consequence.

Ultimately, I should ask what God's word has to say about it.  God has much to say about anger (Ex. 20:13; Matt. 5:21-24; Eph. 4:30-32; Rom. 1:28-31; Col. 3:8; James 1:19-25; Gal. 5:19-21) and that rarely is our (human) anger ever justified (Rom. 12:19; Eph. 4:26; James 1:19-25).  I know of some that say it is never justified in people.  Others claim a measure of "righteous anger" is acceptable.  I don't have a lot of sureness on that question, but I'll say that if anger is o.k. then it's very rare.

This also leads to the deeper question, how much do we consider our vices (nice way to say pet-sins) a luxury?  Something to be accepted, even cherished as our own, private possession?  Have we worked so desperately to "do well" in the other areas of life that we feel authorized (or that we deserve) to justify in our own minds the acceptance or deserved toleration of other Thall-shall-nots?  Do we truly know that sin is stronger than our own wills and anything we allow to live with us will, without exception, become our master?  (Gal 5:6,7)

What costly luxuries are we holding to?  What price are we paying even now to maintain them?

Couldn't hold this one back.

I've been keeping my political opinions to myself lately (except around my bride). I think constant complaints about certain heads of state being morons (Biblical term is "fool") annoy others. I try not to annoy others.

A good friend just put this post up. Thank you FPF for the laugh. No one pours sarcasm on a plate of tom-foolery like you!

But FPF's thoughts provoked me to share some of my own on recent research. I disagree a little, though. We'll probably end up with some Chinese vehicle crammed down our throat since we owe them $700,000,000,000. I have to count the zeros, too. It's a big number.

I read somewhere that if one owes money to another, the borrower becomes servant of the lender. Take a second to consider that word - servant. In a country that is familiar with slavery, picturing servitude isn't difficult.

Well, congratulations We The People! We are now servants to a communist country that we've been openly opposing for almost eight decades.
1. Masters don't usually put up with dissension.
2. Masters usually have major influence on what servants do and where servants go.
3. Servants are in no position to call the shots.
4. Servants receive mercy when the Master feels like it.
5. Some Masters show no mercy (see history for indications about our current Masters).

The future should be interesting.

The Bible Says To Start Them Young

Candi did a Bible study with Wyatt today. I asked him about it over dinner. See if you can guess their topic.

Dad: Wyatt, what did you learn today during your Bible study?
Wyatt: There was a devil!

Dad: A devil?! What else?
Wyatt: There was a tree with women.

Dad: Oh my! What did God say about the "woman tree"?
Wyatt: God said don't eat the tree.

Dad: What would happen if they ate the "woman tree"?
Wyatt: It's die time.

I think he was able to articulate all the theological aspects necessary for a three year old. I wonder what questions God would ask me about what I learned when studying my Bible today. I wonder if He would get as much pleasure from hearing my answers as I did from Wyatt's.

Graduate or Grace

I had an interesting discussion recently over how much education is required/necessary for someone to teach God's word or to be a lead pastor. I don't have experience doing either. Here are the two sides of the discussion.

One side of the discussion says that everyone that God used to write the bible had extensive training. Plus, someone that is continuing their education (through college courses) must commit an abundant amount of time to those courses. As such, one cannot be a pastor or teacher effectively while taking college courses because the community that they are leading will be short changed. On a side note, this side says there's no one with motivation enough to study God's word independently to the extent necessary to teach sound doctrine; thus, official training is required.

The other side says that it's the same Holy Spirit that revealed the word to first century Christians. Consequently, anyone that is gifted by God for this work should have the support of the church to use that gift. The claim from above that there is no one with motivation enough to learn independently is refuted as hypothetical and not real life. This side also claims that the bible is inexhaustible in its wisdom and teachings. Therefore, only a strong foundation of basic, essential doctrine is necessary for one to begin teaching. Which doctrines those are is another subject.

So which do you believe to be true? Must teachers of God's word be professionally trained (i.e. bachelor's, master's, or doctorate's degree) or can they get by with the Holy Spirit's teaching? Perhaps a little of both...

Check out the poll on the right.

Critique

Critique of Biblical Inerrancy by Stephen L. Andrew
Critique
The purpose of Stephen Andrew’s article is to examine the arguments supporting inerrancy and to determine the validity of each argument by both sides.

Andrew held at least three presuppositions: the existence of God to inspire the Bible, the fact of resurrection and the Hebrew scriptural canon. The first and second are reasonable because those involved question neither. To presuppose which Hebrew scripture Jesus attributed authority to may be invalid since it is vital to the Epistemological and Biblical Arguments.

Andrew basically eliminated the Slippery-Slope and Historical Arguments based on reasoning and he intends to prove inerrancy through valid support. He explained that many inerrantists have wrongly defended the Epistemological argument deductively and showed that the Historical Argument only supports inerrancy as a historical norm of Christian orthodoxy.

I see two major strengths to Andrew’s dealing with the Epistemological Argument. The first was responding to Davis’s criticism with an inductive argument rather than a deductive one. The second strength was in his final rebuttal. Andrew showed that Davis raises human reason onto a pedestal, along side the Spirit, for revealing truth, which directly violates the uses for reason which Dr. Towns described in the lesson.

The Biblical Argument presented by Andrew seemed weak. Andrew stated 2 Peter 1:20-21 referred to “Scripture” but actually only speaks of prophecy. Combining that with verses stating God never lies only proves all prophecies to be inerrant. Later, Andrew references Matthew 5:18 which in the context also seems to pertain to fulfillment of prophesy.
Andrew’s rebuttals to the attacks on the Biblical Argument are logical and complete. Andrew thoroughly addressed the counter-arguments and showed them to be false or invalid.

Personal Conclusion
I believe in inerrancy of the bible. There were several quotes in the article that I think substantiate how important inerrancy is. The clearest one was Clark Pinnock, “Inerrancy is to be regarded as an essential concomitant of the doctrine of inspiration, a necessary inference drawn from the fact that Scripture is God’s Word… If one believes the Scripture to be god’s Word, he cannot fail to believe it inerrant. …” I agree with Andrew’s intended Biblical Argument, however, I believe he arrived at the conclusion incorrectly. As I stated above, 2 Peter 1:20-21 limits God’s inspiration to just prophecy. However, Paul clearly teaches in 2 Timothy 3:16 that God inspires all scripture, as well as describing what God’s intended use for scripture is. Linking 2 Timothy 3:16, with Numbers 23:19 that claims God can’t lie, and Matt 5:18, “one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law” points to clear and concrete inerrancy of scripture. The logic would be (1) God inspired every word of Scripture, (2) God intended every word (even letters) to be written, and (3) God can’t lie. Thus, every word of the Bible must be inerrant.

This being said, the question remains as to which scriptures Jesus was referring to. The New Testament authenticity, validity, and accuracy are not brought into question by this issue. However, since the Hebrew scriptures were not canonized completely until after Jesus’ ascension Jesus may have only been referring to the books that were accepted by the Jews at the time, the books that He specifically quoted or referenced, or something less than both.