In Mark 1:1-13, the gospel writer introduces us to the “gospel of Jesus Christ.”
His first step is to recall Old Testament prophecy regarding God’s promise to send a messenger to prepare the way before the Lord/LORD (the Old Testament passages use both terms). So we have both a promise from God that he will send the Lord, and also a promise from Him to the Lord that he will prepare the way.
In comes the vivid imagery of John the Baptizer, dressed in camel fur and eating bugs in the desert. Obviously, from the text, he is the messenger preparing the way. But how? And why would the Lord come from God into the desert?
John prepares the way by baptizing people and preaching repentance for the forgiveness of sins. These are radical departures from the norm for Israel: baptism was for Gentiles and Israel secured forgiveness (atonement) through the sacrifice of animals. John’s preaching included the admonition that there was ‘one greater’ who would baptize with the Holy Spirit.
Then appears Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee: a nobody from nowhereville. He comes to the desert and gets baptized by John in the Jordan, just like everyone else. Could this be the ‘one greater’? Certainly not. But Mark confirms Jesus’ status by recording what he saw: the heavens opening, the Spirit descending, heaven talking. Then a curious thing happens: Jesus is expelled to the desert.
If everyone was in the desert already listening to John, how bad must it be if you are expelled from there to the desert?
Mark doesn’t leave us wondering at Jesus’ status, though. Even while he is in the wilderness being tempted, angels are tending to him.
So in Mark’s introduction we have Old Testament prophecy regarding the messenger and the Lord; John’s appearance and prophecy that ‘one greater’ was coming; the ‘one greater’ would baptize with the Holy Spirit; Jesus of Nazareth is baptized by John and baptized (to a degree) by the Holy Spirt; Jesus’ baptism is attended by eschatalogically significant events of heavens opening and heaven (God) speaking; Jesus is personally attended by angels.
Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah (Christ), but not only is he flesh and blood — nobody from nowhereville — he is the Son of God, a kinship confirmed by miraculous and prophetic signs
Monday, January 17, 2011
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Bringing Home the Bacon
Congress, with its batch of fresh faces from the November election, vowed to address the subject of earmarks in appropriations bills (e.g., bacon for voters to chew on).
Conservatives proposed banning the practice of earmarks altogether. To do so would mean that individual congressmen would no longer be able to attach the approval to spend money on his district's rattlesnake rodeo to unrelated bills addressing the USDA meat inspection practices, for example.
In the scheme of trillion-dollar budgets and even bigger deficits, earmarks don't amount to much. But to ordinary taxpayers, and because of the ideology of big government it represents, they do.
But even some Republicans balked at the notion, on the grounds that 'it is my duty to make sure I secure some federal money for my constituents back home.'
Let's review a few basic principles from Civics 101.
The 'federal money' only exists because the U.S. Government takes it from citizens. It takes money from citizens by taxing us: income tax, business tax, fees, regulations, etc, etc.
So, to 'secure' federal money for constituents is to capitulate to the most inefficient scheme ever: send money to Washington through taxes, then beg for it back after politicians, bureacrats and regulators have extracted salaries and fees and generally wasted a bunch of it.
If congressmen were really concerned about constituents, they would seek to end the practice altogether. If people in your district need money for the rattlesnake rodeo, don't beg for it from Washington: instead, don't send it to Washington in the first place.
The attempt to ban earmarks? Failed.
Conservatives proposed banning the practice of earmarks altogether. To do so would mean that individual congressmen would no longer be able to attach the approval to spend money on his district's rattlesnake rodeo to unrelated bills addressing the USDA meat inspection practices, for example.
In the scheme of trillion-dollar budgets and even bigger deficits, earmarks don't amount to much. But to ordinary taxpayers, and because of the ideology of big government it represents, they do.
But even some Republicans balked at the notion, on the grounds that 'it is my duty to make sure I secure some federal money for my constituents back home.'
Let's review a few basic principles from Civics 101.
The 'federal money' only exists because the U.S. Government takes it from citizens. It takes money from citizens by taxing us: income tax, business tax, fees, regulations, etc, etc.
So, to 'secure' federal money for constituents is to capitulate to the most inefficient scheme ever: send money to Washington through taxes, then beg for it back after politicians, bureacrats and regulators have extracted salaries and fees and generally wasted a bunch of it.
If congressmen were really concerned about constituents, they would seek to end the practice altogether. If people in your district need money for the rattlesnake rodeo, don't beg for it from Washington: instead, don't send it to Washington in the first place.
The attempt to ban earmarks? Failed.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Effectual Call & Views of Man
Anthony Hoekema, in his book Saved by Grace, gives a good summary of the effects that one's view of the effectual call of the gospel had in relation to one's view of the nature of man.
The 'gospel call' is the demand the gospel places on all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. The 'effectual call' is that which results on one man's responding to the gospel call while another does not.
According to Hoekema, one's view of the nature of man has great impact on whether one sees a distinction between the gospel call and effectual call at all, and the relation between them and the nature of man.
The Pelagian View
Man is morally and spiritually neutral so that he is free to choose to do good or bad. No effectual call is necessary.
The Semi-Pelagian View
Man is morally and spiritually sick, but all still have the ability to respond to the gospel. No effectual call is necessary.
The Arminian View
Man is depraved, but there is sufficient enabling grace such that those who hear the gospel can cooperate with this grace and accept the gospel. No effectual call is necessary.
The Reformed View
Man is dead in sin, unable on his own to respond favorably to the gospel call. Effectual calling is necessary to bring the man to life and enable him to respond.
It is certainly apt to suggest that the doctrines of grace all fall into place once the biblical picture of the nature of man is accepted. As J.I. Packer said, one needs only be a one-point Calvinist: God Saves Sinners.
The 'gospel call' is the demand the gospel places on all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. The 'effectual call' is that which results on one man's responding to the gospel call while another does not.
According to Hoekema, one's view of the nature of man has great impact on whether one sees a distinction between the gospel call and effectual call at all, and the relation between them and the nature of man.
The Pelagian View
Man is morally and spiritually neutral so that he is free to choose to do good or bad. No effectual call is necessary.
The Semi-Pelagian View
Man is morally and spiritually sick, but all still have the ability to respond to the gospel. No effectual call is necessary.
The Arminian View
Man is depraved, but there is sufficient enabling grace such that those who hear the gospel can cooperate with this grace and accept the gospel. No effectual call is necessary.
The Reformed View
Man is dead in sin, unable on his own to respond favorably to the gospel call. Effectual calling is necessary to bring the man to life and enable him to respond.
It is certainly apt to suggest that the doctrines of grace all fall into place once the biblical picture of the nature of man is accepted. As J.I. Packer said, one needs only be a one-point Calvinist: God Saves Sinners.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)