Update: New Pics in Worship Gatherings

New Foundation Pictures! Check out this sweet pic and more in the Worship Gatherings Album. A special thanks to Derek, the PhotoMan, for all his skills. Anytime you want to visit the albums look over to the sidebar and you'll find a link to our online albums.







Check out the glowing sensation coming forth out of the Colonel's Bucket. That definitely makes me want to give more in the offering this week.

Jewish Idioms: Sounding the Trumpet

I am going to start a series of post on some Jewish idioms that Jesus used during his ministry on earth. Jesus was a Jew and he used a lot of rabbinic parables and idioms in his teaching. Understanding these idioms helps a lot of his teaching make more sense.

This one comes from Matthew 6:1-4:

1"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2"Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

The ancient Jews believed that the three virtues of prayer, charity, and repentance were evidence of a heart which had truly turned from sin. The Temple was divided up into sections or courts and only certain people could go to certain parts. There was the Court of Gentiles, Court of Women, Court of Priest, etc., all the way up to the Holy of Holies. In the Court of Women, there were thirteen boxes or jars that were used to collect charitable gifts, alms, etc. They were wide at the bottom and narrow at the top and resembled trumpets. When coins were dropped into them they made a very recognizable sound. Often, the Pharisees who wanted to draw attention to themselves and boast would drop a large number of coins in at once. This was called “sounding the trumpet”.

It was the practice of “sounding the trumpet” and letting everyone know how much they were giving that Jesus was opposed to in Matthew 6:1-4.

Calvinism vs. Arminianism Part III: Irresistible Grace - Part 1

Well it has been a while since my last post, so if you want to review the first two post or refer back to them here they are. Introduction, Total Depravity

In the third blog of this series I am gonna talk about Irresistible Grace. I know the order is TULIP but it is easier to think about Calvinism if you think about it in the order that someone would experience it.

In 5 point Calvinism or “high Calvinism”, all five parts are needed to understand the other parts. They build on each other, or logically cause the next, so when someone says they are a 3 or 4 point Calvinist, it means that they don’t accept the other points even though they are implied or cause the other. Calvinism is not easy to accept because of the influence that Arminian (or somewhat Arminian) theology has had on most people. Believe me I know, I have struggled with the idea of God’s sovereignty, especially concerning salvation, for a while now and have just began to accept it. Now I see it as comforting and loving, when I once viewed it as unfair. The God centeredness and humbling view of Calvinism and some of its theologians (Edwards, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Owen, Carson, Piper, etc.) is so beautiful, contagious and inspiring. I am not trying to convince you to believe this or believe that, I just want you read it with an open mind, don’t dismiss it just because it teaches election and limited atonement, or because you think God shouldn’t be like that. The foremost authority we have on spiritual matters is the scriptures (not what we think is right or what we think should be right) so take a look at them openly and then go from there. This is not something where I can spit out some scriptures and you can say yeah, that looks right I will believe that now, or no, I don’t think God should work that way. It takes time to let God teach you and for this stuff to sink in. And even if you don’t agree with everything after taking an open look, that is fine, I am not saying you are not saved if you don’t believe this way. In fact neither the Calvinist nor the Arminian (for the most part) think that the other is not saved. The Calvinist just believes that the Arminian was saved in the way Calvinist understand things, and the Arminian believes that the Calvinist was saved in the way Arminians understand things. I am just saying don’t throw Calvinism out of the water without learning what it is and what it teaches. There is still a lot to gain from this view of salvation as well as things to learn from Edwards, Calvin, Spurgeon, etc. Even, Jonathan Edwards, considered by secular and evangelical historians to be the greatest religious thinker America has ever produced, struggled with these concepts.

“From my childhood up, my mind had been full of objections against the doctrine of God’s sovereignty… It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I remember the time very well, when I seemed to be convinced, and fully satisfied, as to this sovereignty of God. But never could I give an account, how, or by what means, I was thus convinced… However, my mind rested in it; and it put an end to all those cavils and objections. And there has been a wonderful alteration in my mind, in respect to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, from that day to this; so that I scarce ever have found so much as the rising of an objection against it, in the most absolute sense… I have often since had not only a conviction but a delightful conviction. The doctrine has very often appeared exceeding pleasant, bright, and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God. But my first conviction was not so.” (“Personal Narrative” from Representative Selections)

So for that reason, I felt like I needed to give a lot of attention to irresistible grace to help set up the last three parts. So because of that, I am gonna have to split irresistible grace up into two parts because it is really long, even the two parts are long, lol. I am gonna post them both at the same time though because I feel it’s hard to just pick back up. In the first part I am gonna introduce some terms and then talk about irresistible grace as Calvinism teaches it. For the second part, I will talk about the Arminian concept of prevenient grace and some problems I have with it, as well as just some comments in general.

We are now at the most controversial parts of TULIP, Irresistible grace, Limited Atonement, and Unconditional Election. All Arminians disagree with these three parts. Classical Arminianism affirms total depravity (though only hypothetically as I will show later), but most Arminians today are not classical Arminians. You will also find a lot of Arminians today that affirm the Perseverance of the Saints, which classical Arminianism does not.

Just a little refresher about what was in the earlier post. In Calvinism, the unbeliever is in a state of Total Depravity in which he cannot submit to God willingly. By God’s irresistible grace, He regenerates the person before he is able to have faith and believe. Calvinist are monergist, which means that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects the regeneration of Christians. Arminians are synergist, which means that the regeneration of the believer is the result of cooperation between God and humans. Here is a definition of regeneration by J.I. Packer.

Regeneration is the spiritual change wrought in the heart of man by the Holy Spirit in which his/her inherently sinful nature is changed so that he/she can respond to God in Faith, and live in accordance with His Will (Matt. 19:28; John 3:3,5,7; Titus 3:5). It extends to the whole nature of man, altering his governing disposition, illuminating his mind, freeing his will, and renewing his nature.

In Calvinism, regeneration proceeds faith; in Arminianism, faith proceeds regeneration. In both Calvinism and Arminianism faith and regeneration are so closely connected and happen so close together that you can’t distinguish them. So this whole debate is over something that happens so close together in both systems that they can’t be separated, lol. For Calvinism, the Holy Spirit regenerates you and allows you to choose freely and at the same moment you have faith and believe. For Arminianism, you have faith and at the same moment God regenerates you.

Confused yet? Stick with me, I just wanted to cover some basic concepts and definitions like regeneration, monergism, synergism, etc, incase you have never heard of them. Now we can get into the Calvinist concept of irresistible grace.

First off, Irresistible grace (sometimes referred to as effectual call) doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit can’t be resisted; it means that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance if He wants to. The Holy Spirit can be resisted at times:

You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. (Acts 7:51)

The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign over everything and can overcome all resistance if He wills.

“Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases” (Psalm 115:3)

“He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand” (Daniel 4:35)

This is what Paul teaches in Romans 9.

14What can we say, then? God is not unrighteous, is he? Of course not! 15For he says to Moses, “I will be merciful to the person I want to be merciful to, and I will be kind to the person I want to be kind to.” 16Therefore, God’s choice does not depend on a person’s will or effort, but on God himself, who shows mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for this very purpose: that I might demonstrate my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”£18Therefore, God has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

Well then if no one can resist his will, why does he still find fault in us? Paul answers this in verses 19-21, by saying God can do what he wants, who are you to question God.

19You may ask me, “Then why does God£ still find fault with anybody?£ For who can resist his will?” 20On the contrary, who are you —mere man that you are—to talk back to God? Can an object that was molded say to the one who molded it, “Why did you make me like this?” 21A potter has the right to do what he wants to with his clay, doesn’t he? He can make something for a special occasion or something for ordinary use from the same lump.

The usual Arminian argument is that the Holy Spirit draws us to God, but we are able to freely accept or resist that drawing. The Calvinist answer by saying that unless God regenerates us, we will always use our free will to resist God. If a person is humble enough to submit to God it is because God has given that person a new nature that makes them humble enough to submit to God.

No one can come to Christ unless God draws them.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44)

The Arminian response is that God draws all men, not just some. If this were true then all men would be saved, but from the scripture this drawing is the reason some are saved and some are not.

63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64But there are some among you who do not believe.” For from the beginning Jesus knew those who wouldn’t believe, as well as the one who would betray him. 65So he said, “That’s why I told you that no one can come to me unless it be granted him by the Father.” (John 6:63-35)

Faith and repentance are both gifts from God.

24And the Lord's servant[d] must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:24-25)

Notice that repentance is also a gift from God. So it is not saying that just salvation is a gift, it is saying that prerequisites of salvation are also a gift.

Here is a statement from John Piper:

“When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God "irresistible grace".

23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.(1Corin. 1:23-24)

There are two types of calling upon people; the first one (v.23) is the external, general call of the gospel that goes out to all people through the preaching of the word and is generally considered foolishness. The second call, verse 24, is the call of irresistible grace, in which the Holy Spirit draws men to Christ and causes their heart to be willing to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus. This results in the cross no longer being foolishness, but the power of God!

4In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants[b] for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:4-6)

The minds of unbelievers are blinded from seeing the glory of Christ. Irresistible grace is the act of God opening our hearts to the light, without out it we would always choose darkness.

19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." (John 3:19-21)

From John 3:19-21, those who do come into the light, realize that what they have done has been done through God. Another translations says “wrought in God”

1Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (1 John 5:1)

Here regeneration or new birth precedes faith in Christ.

9The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11He came to his own,[b] and his own people[c] did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:9-12)

The ones who did receive Jesus were born of God. This birth is only possible by God, not the will of flesh or the will of man.

One of the strongest scriptures for unconditional election is Romans 8:28-33:

28And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[g] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (Romans 8:28-33)

Take a look at the call in verse 30; this is the call of irresistible grace that results in justification! But this doesn’t square with the Arminian position, which says that all men are given the same call, and that some choose to reject it. From this scripture, all who are called choose to accept Jesus and are justified. This seems like it can’t be the “prevenient grace” as Arminianism teaches it, or the general call of the Gospel given to everyone, because not all people are justified. This is the call of irresistible grace that always leads to justification.

Calvinism vs. Arminianism Part III: Irresistible Grace Part 2

The main objection to Calvinism is that God forces himself on people and makes them choose a certain way, and takes away their free will. Actually it is quite the opposite, irresistible grace is compatible with preaching that persuades people to repent and believe. After being regenerated the believer has a new nature and therefore his choice is truly free. But from the Arminian perspective, the believer doesn’t have a new nature and so he must be “wooed” into making the right choice, which doesn't seem like a free choice to me.

What seems so funny to me is that no Arminian would say that when we get to heaven we won’t have any free will. But from their position, man, as well as God, could choose to sin in heaven. In heaven we have our new nature and the old nature has died completely, but from the libertarian perspective we (as well as God) could choose against our nature and choose to sin. Most Arminian theologians don’t take this prospective when we are in heaven, they would say that we still have free will but we always choose according to our nature and will always be perfect. But they disagree with the same perspective on earth. The Calvinist says that before regeneration, the person has only a sinful nature; he has free will but will always use his free will to act according to his nature, which is sin. But from the Calvinist perspective God regenerates us and gives us a new nature, it takes us back to a state kind of like Adam before the fall, he had free will and could choose good and bad, but after the fall he and everyone after him had a sinful nature. The Arminian perspective says that through prevenient grace, God helps us to choose Jesus without giving us a new nature.

Lets take a look at the Arminian position and some problems I have with it. Arminianism holds the concept of prevenient or preceding grace which is given equally to all humans at some point in their life. Classical Arminians affirm total depravity, but according to John Wesley, prevenient grace offsets the effects of the fall and the extent of total depravity (Works of Wesley, 10:229-30). So, even though they affirm total depravity including a person’s will, it is only hypothetical because prevenient grace restores everyone’s free will. Prevenient grace enables a person to corporate with saving grace by restoring a person’s free will.

Ironically, Classical Arminians believe in comaptibilist free will (meaning that man can only make choices that are compatible with his nature) prior to prevenient grace. After prevenient grace, the person is given a libertarian free will (meaning that man can make choices regardless of his nature). In other words, prior to prevenient grace the Arminian along with the Calvinist affirm the depraved will and the inability to submit to God, but after prevenient grace the Arminian is freed from his nature (without being given a new one!) and can choose Jesus in the libertarian sense. So prevenient grace places the sinner into a “neutral” state that is neither regenerate nor unregenerate, and allows them to choose. Also, most Arminians believe that we go back to a compatiblist free will in heaven. The problem I have with that view is that, I don’t see where it says in scripture that we are placed in an in-between state before we respond in faith.

That is how I understand the concept of prevenient grace from reading Wesley and other Arminian theologians, if I presented it wrong or unfairly, then help me understand it and I will back up and punt again (it won’t be the first time). I think it is good to study and figure something out, but if some new information comes up, I think it is good to take a fair look at it and if it seems right and biblical, then you should be able to believe it. We don’t have everything figured out, and a person shouldn’t be so stuck on an idea or system that He can’t examine it and let go of it if it is proven wrong.

The problem I have with this concept of prevenient grace is that I don’t see it taught in the scriptures. The main one often used is John 1:9.

Here are some of my thoughts and speculations that led me to dismiss Arminianism: Arminians seem to start from the position that God is good and must be fair to all sinners, thus putting God in a box and saying you have to act in this manner. They start from the position that God wanted to create us because he wanted people that would choose to love him freely. (First, God didn’t have to create us because He needed someone to love him freely. He doesn’t need anything; he would be perfectly alright enjoying the communion that the trinity shares forever.) But, since God is good he must treat all sinners fairly, and the concept of prevenient grace is what is needed for God to be fair to all sinners and man to have its libertarian free will, which God is obligated to give man because of the manner in which we have defined him to act. So from my perspective it seems like this concept of prevenient grace was forced on scripture to make God act in the way we think he should act. Even with prevenient grace Arminianism still has holes, but without prevenient grace it is impossible for it to hold up.

Calvinist begin from the point taken from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, which states that “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. The Calvinist start from the position that God is sovereign over everything and is not obligated to give man anything other than what is deserved, which is punishment for our sins. They believe that God does everything to bring glory to himself (Soli Deo Gloria). This might seem selfish or prideful of God, but He has to be for himself before he can be for us. The thing that is of most worth is God, so God has to value himself and his glory above all, if He valued our rights above himself, he would be committing idolatry and would no longer be God. And therefore, we would be considered higher than God. So Jesus death on the cross was ultimately to bring glory to God, his death did that by allowing him to show his love, forgiveness, mercy, and grace to us, but we are not the reason or the plan, we were just part of the larger plan that God has had from the beginning of time. To say that he had to die for our sins because He is love and that is how he is supposed to act is not true. He would have still been the same God, he would still have been just and righteous to let us all perish, but because he wants to bring glory to himself, he choose to die for our sins so that his love, mercy, and forgiveness would also be known and that his name would be more glorious than if he chose not to. ( 1 John 2:12, Isaiah 43:7, 2 Sam 7:23, Isaiah 63:1-14, Rom 3:25-26, Exodus 9:16, Isaiah 48:9-11)

Lets get back to the Arminian perspective. Another problem I have is that Arminians can’t explain why some choose Jesus and some don’t. If all people are given an equal measure of prevenient grace at some point in their life then why do some choose to believe and some don’t. From the scriptures we see a God who is active in our salvation and that always succeeds in saving those who he has called. But with the Arminian position, God succeeds sometimes but fails other times. If prevenient grace puts everyone in a neutral state, what makes some choose Jesus and other not? Is it something inside the person that they could boast about for finding within themselves what the others don’t? Is it because they were more intelligent or righteous than the ones who don’t believe? Now Arminians would never say that they chose God for these reasons, but that they chose God because they recognized their need for him and his forgiveness, but you are still left with the big question of why. If God desires all to be saved, and if God, as the Arminian describes, knows who and who doesn’t believe and why they don’t believe, then why can’t God arrange the presentation of the gospel in such a way that all people believe and still have free will in the libertarian sense? That seems plausible to me.

The Calvinist refers to the grace given equally to all as common grace. This is the grace given to all men that gives mankind knowledge of God and their sin. It allows the gospel to be preached, because God would be righteous and just in punishing unbelievers right now, but God is patient and shows mercy. This grace is different from irresistible grace. Common grace is separate from irresistible grace and it doesn’t lead to saving grace, like prevenient grace leads to saving grace.

Sadly, a lot of times I get looked down on for taking an unpopular belief that is generally misunderstood, and a lot of times my comments are taken personally so I just wanted to clear that up. I am just debating the system of Arminianism; it is not an attack on people that hold that view. I still believe Arminians are Christians; I just differ in the way I understand how it happened. Likewise, Arminians should still think that Calvinist are Christians, and not attack them personally by making outrageous claims without understanding what they actually teach.

Well if you made it this far in the blog :), that is about all I have on irresistible grace. The next post will be on the doctrine of Limited Atonement, which should get really interesting.

Bonfire @ Wesson's

The HangOUT tomorrow night is going to be over at the Wesson's for a good ole Bonfire. We'll be meeting at the Renfro Center (map) @ 7pm and leaving from there. We'll try and have the van so everyone doesn't have to drive. There will be a couple people driving in case some want to come back earlier or stay later. See ya'll tomorrow.

What happens when you mix the 7 deadly sins?

Well heck I don't know...but this lady (who, by the way, has a very cool blog with tons of this index card humor) came up with a neat graphic on an index card explaining this. Check it out below.

The Self-Esteem Movement Backfires -- When Praise is Dangerous

The Self-Esteem Movement Backfires -- When Praise is Dangerous
By: Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr

The self-esteem movement has transformed much of America, but this is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the schools. A brilliant article in New York Magazine provides a fascinating glimpse into why the movement is crashing and burning.

As writer Po Bronson explains:

Since the 1969 publication of The Psychology of Self-Esteem, in which Nathaniel Branden opined that self-esteem was the single most important facet of a person, the belief that one must do whatever he can to achieve positive self-esteem has become a movement with broad societal effects. Anything potentially damaging to kids' self-esteem was axed. Competitions were frowned upon. Soccer coaches stopped counting goals and handed out trophies to everyone. Teachers threw out their red pencils. Criticism was replaced with ubiquitous, even undeserved, praise.

Author Melanie Phillips offered a devastating critique of the movement in her book All Must Have Prizes. As she revealed, achievement in all areas was being replaced with exercises intended to boost self-esteem. Every player on the team has to receive a prize and all prizes have to be equal. She put it this way in 2003:

Surely, in the immortal words of John McEnroe, they cannot be serious? Alas, the latest pronouncement from those in charge of our exam system is truly beyond satire.

Their new idea for boosting examination success is to abolish the very idea of failure, along with the difference between the right and the wrong answer to a question.

That was in Britain, but the same trends are fully present on this side of the Atlantic. Nevertheless, the point of Bronson's article is that the tide appears to be turning. Take a look at this section:

For a few decades, it's been noted that a large percentage of all gifted students (those who score in the top 10 percent on aptitude tests) severely underestimate their own abilities. Those afflicted with this lack of perceived competence adopt lower standards for success and expect less of themselves. They underrate the importance of effort, and they overrate how much help they need from a parent.

When parents praise their children's intelligence, they believe they are providing the solution to this problem. According to a survey conducted by Columbia University, 85 percent of American parents think it's important to tell their kids that they're smart. In and around the New York area, according to my own (admittedly nonscientific) poll, the number is more like 100 percent. Everyone does it, habitually. The constant praise is meant to be an angel on the shoulder, ensuring that children do not sell their talents short.

But a growing body of research--and a new study from the trenches of the New York public-school system--strongly suggests it might be the other way around. Giving kids the label of "smart" does not prevent them from underperforming. It might actually be causing it.

It seems that a growing body of research indicates that the self-esteem movement, which argued for praising intelligence rather than effort, may be hurting the kids it claims to help. Bronson reports on the research conducted by Carol Dweck, Lisa Blackwell, and Roy Baumeister:

Dweck and Blackwell's work is part of a larger academic challenge to one of the self-esteem movement's key tenets: that praise, self-esteem, and performance rise and fall together. From 1970 to 2000, there were over 15,000 scholarly articles written on self-esteem and its relationship to everything--from sex to career advancement. But results were often contradictory or inconclusive. So in 2003 the Association for Psychological Science asked Dr. Roy Baumeister, then a leading proponent of self-esteem, to review this literature. His team concluded that self-esteem was polluted with flawed science. Only 200 of those 15,000 studies met their rigorous standards.

After reviewing those 200 studies, Baumeister concluded that having high self-esteem didn't improve grades or career achievement. It didn't even reduce alcohol usage. And it especially did not lower violence of any sort. (Highly aggressive, violent people happen to think very highly of themselves, debunking the theory that people are aggressive to make up for low self-esteem.) At the time, Baumeister was quoted as saying that his findings were "the biggest disappointment of my career."

Now he's on Dweck's side of the argument, and his work is going in a similar direction: He will soon publish an article showing that for college students on the verge of failing in class, esteem-building praise causes their grades to sink further. Baumeister has come to believe the continued appeal of self-esteem is largely tied to parents' pride in their children's achievements: It's so strong that "when they praise their kids, it's not that far from praising themselves."

More:

New York University professor of psychiatry Judith Brook explains that the issue for parents is one of credibility. "Praise is important, but not vacuous praise," she says. "It has to be based on a real thing--some skill or talent they have." Once children hear praise they interpret as meritless, they discount not just the insincere praise, but sincere praise as well.

Scholars from Reed College and Stanford reviewed over 150 praise studies. Their meta-analysis determined that praised students become risk-averse and lack perceived autonomy. The scholars found consistent correlations between a liberal use of praise and students' "shorter task persistence, more eye-checking with the teacher, and inflected speech such that answers have the intonation of questions."

Dweck's research on overpraised kids strongly suggests that image maintenance becomes their primary concern--they are more competitive and more interested in tearing others down. A raft of very alarming studies illustrate this.

The article indicates that older children and teenagers learn to become cynical about the undeserved praise they receive from parents, teachers, and others. They actually perform better if they receive serious and skilled criticism, rather than empty praise.

The article is a must-read for parents, teachers, and all concerned with the culture around us. The article is devastating to the self-esteem movement, but encouraging to all who hope for a recovery of cultural sanity -- at least on this one significant point. Praising effort and achievement yields positive results. Praising for the sake of praising hurts far more than it helps. It is a recipe for individual and social disaster.

Valentines Day Special

Well many of you probably didn't realize this...but we just passed our 1 year anniversary of this blog on Feb. 6. What made me remember this today of all days is one of my favorite blogs that appeared on the site last year. So in the spirit of V-day here's the best post of '06 from the Foundation blog.

The "Valentines Day Bologna" post:

Well first off let me say that I kinda have a very biased opinion when it comes to Valentine's Day, well actually when it comes to anything, but if you are offended that I bash this corporate-commercial-bologna-holiday, I'm sorry, but this is a blog, haha, read at your own risk.

So my spill on Valentine's Day: The reason why this holiday is no different than any other day to me is probably because I celebrate the holiday as being, "Singles Awareness Day," (a holiday I celebrate everyday, haha) the term which is becoming very popular in Western Culture for Feb 14. This is basically because I never really have had to worry about buying a girl chocolate, roses, and dinner on Feb. 14 becuase I've always had the great joy of being single when it comes to the big V-day (That's right all 21 years of my life, I've never had a gf on Valentine's Day, what a lucky guy). So to my point and how this relates to this God-blog:

St. Valentine's day can be traced back to a Catholic Church feast day in honor of St. Valentine. The important thing to note here is that there are at least 3 different St. Valentine's in the Catholic Encyclopedia who are listed as early martyrs under the date Feb. 14. So we don't know who exactly Valentine is and the day's association with romantic love didn't arrive until after the High Middle Ages. The first recorded, "romantic" written valentine note dates to the 1300's in England and Feb. 14 was traditionally held as the day when birds paired off to mate. So anyways, my point is this, this holiday is a purely Corporate America, Commercial holiday with it's sole purpose of making money. There isn't any kind of Christian connotation which somehow merits this holiday, and in fact, I would bet that many Baptist's would denounce Christian connonations when they found out it was related to the Catholic Church! (Yes that was a diss on Baptists, but I am one, so I can do it). It wasn't till the mid-1900's that people started buying chocolate and sending rose's to their lovers on Feb. 14 and it wasn't until the 1980's that the diamond industry started promoting V-day as a holiday to give jewelry. And why do we send so many cards? In fact there are over 1 Billion Cards sent on V-day and that makes it the 2nd largest "card day" behind another now-commercialized holiday, Christmas.

My point is this: Valentine's day really doesn't mean anything. It's shallow. Its a commercial holiday which helps stimulate our economy. Valentine's day has become nothing more than an experience that we look forward to having once a year. Girl's look forward to the experience of getting cards, flowers, chocolate, and a date. While guy's look forward to sadly enough, 'scoring' with their woman.

Many people have done the same thing to Christianity and following Jesus. We have made it simply an experience. If we don't "feel" something or experience something then we have missed out and we don't know God. Many people turn away from the faith when they don't feel God, or see Him work in 'signs and wonders.' In a sense, we have turned going to Church into something thats not much different than a "shallow-holiday" when we go seeking an experience and not the Divine God of this Universe. Following Jesus isn't about doing it when your all tingly inside or its easy, anyone can do that. We only deepin our faith when we follow Christ through the trials and hard times. So let's not turn Jesus into just an experience and make Him into another once-a-week bologna-holiday!

Repentance by J.I. Packer

Here is a short article on repentance by one of my favorite theologians.









REPENTANCE A CHRISTIAN CHANGES RADICALLY by J.I. Packer

.... I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds. ACTS 26:20 The New Testament word for repentance means changing one’s mind so that one’s views, values, goals, and ways are changed and one’s whole life is lived differently. The change is radical, both inwardly and outwardly; mind and judgment, will and affections, behavior and life-style, motives and purposes, are all involved. Repenting means starting to live a new life.

The call to repent was the first and fundamental summons in the preaching of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:2), Jesus (Matt. 4:17), the Twelve (Mark 6:12), Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2:38), Paul to the Gentiles (Acts 17:30; 26:20), and the glorified Christ to five of the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2:5, 16, 22; 3:3, 19). It was part of Jesus’ summary of the gospel that was to be taken to the world (Luke 24:47). It corresponds to the constant summons of the Old Testament prophets to Israel to return to the God from whom they had strayed (e.g., Jer. 23:22; 25:4-5; Zech. 1:3-6). Repentance is always set forth as the path to remission of sins and restoration to God’s favor, impenitence as the road to ruin (e.g., Luke 13:1-8).

Repentance is a fruit of faith, which is itself a fruit of regeneration. But in actual life, repentance is inseparable from faith, being the negative aspect (faith is the positive aspect) of turning to Christ as Lord and Savior. The idea that there can be saving faith without repentance, and that one can be justified by embracing Christ as Savior while refusing him as Lord, is a destructive delusion. True faith acknowledges Christ as what he truly is, our God-appointed king as well as our God-given priest, and true trust in him as Savior will express itself in submission to him as Lord also. To refuse this is to seek justification through an impenitent faith, which is no faith.

• In repentance, says the Westminster Confession, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent; so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all ways of his commandments. (XV.2)

This statement highlights the fact that incomplete repentance, sometimes called “attrition” (remorse, self-reproach, and sorrow for sin generated by fear of punishment, without any wish or resolve to forsake sinning) is insufficient. True repentance is “contrition,” as modeled by David in Psalm 51, having at its heart a serious purpose of sinning no more but of living henceforth a life that will show one’s repentance to be full and real (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20). Repenting of any vice means going in the opposite direction, to practice the virtues most directly opposed to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Concise Theology: A Guide To Historic Christian Beliefs

The Screwtape Letters

Here is an article I found on making The Screwtape Letters into a film. Should be interesting!

Walden Media, the family-friendly and just-a-bit religious company behind The Chronicles of Narnia, has announced plans to make another, non-Narnia film based on the works of CS Lewis. But this time, it’s the turn of The Screwtape Letters.

The book takes the form of a series of letters from an experienced demon called Screwtape to his young protégé, Wormwood. Set against a background where demons, out in the world, attempt to turn people away from faith and generally cause mischief, the letters highlight examples of human weakness and chinks in people’s faith that the young demon can take advantage of in order to corrupt and weaken those he targets.

It’s a little difficult to see how it would be turned into a film with an actual plot, and there remains the problem of getting the (probably) religious target audience to go see a film about a demon, but it’s an undeniably interesting read and a humourous look at human foibles, so it could work very well, even for those who are less than committed to any religion at all.

There’s no word yet on a writer or director, let alone cast, but it’s to be produced by Fantastic Four producer Ralph Winter, along with Randy Argue and CS Lewis’ stepson Douglas Gresham.

The Winter Adventure

Well we are almost at our 1 year anniversary of this blog and last night marked a big day for us Foundation Guys....we finally got our PA system (that's Professional Audio for ya'll non-geeks). Man we have been talking about and dreaming about having our own gear for a long time, so we can go anywhere we'd like and have a worship service...and sound dang good doing it too.

So what makes this story even greater is the Winter Adventure me and Walk had to go on to get this dern thing. Well, originally our sound guy Hal from Harrison Productions, was gonna drive up from Clemson to deliver the system and do a sound check with us, but his father had to undergo some surgery and he couldn't come all the way up for the service Sunday...so we were going to meet him in Spartanburg to get the system.

Well then it snows yesterday, and of course you don't want to haul around an expensive PA in the back of your truck in the snow so Hal decided to just bring it later. Well then it was going to be sometime next week, and man waiting that long would drive me crazy...I mean heck we've been wantin this thing for a year now...So me and Walk decided to hop in the car and drive all the way down to Anderson, SC...home of Perry Noble...and pick this thing up in the snow. Oh and we had to get there and back in 2 1/2 hours...which was not going to happen. Anyways, we go haulin down 85 in the slush running 70mph the whole way and finally meet up with Hal in the back of a Wendy's parking lot. We get out of our vehicles, swap big cargo containers, briefcases, and metal boxes and end with a handshake, get in our cars and pull off. Man I wish we had on some suits....the drive-thru ladies would have thought we were the Redneck Mafia with some "hot" goods.

After our exchange we grabbed a bite to eat and went sliding in the slush all the way back home and finally got to set our baby up in the Renfro Center. It was way better than Christmas...and it wasn't even a present, in fact we'll be paying on this thing for a while, haha....but oh boy, did it sound sooo good. So anyways, I'm very excited about the service this Sunday because we'll get to put this sweet rig to good use and I'll get to talk out of some fancy little ear microphone that's so small I'm afraid it's going to get lost in my ear.

See yall Sunday.

Know Your Role

"Know your role and shut your mouth!" A line from the greatest smack-talking wrestler on the planet and also the title of this week's message at the Foundation Worship Gathering.

The service will be in the Aldersgate Gym @ 2pm. Come check us out and bring a friend. See Yall Sunday.


Directions to Aldersgate