Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Pretty good weekend I'de say!
I helped out with my churches youth group with a lock in at the church where we went to the mall and played a scavenger hunt then came back to the church had a devotional time and then did a talent show and had a gutter of ice cream literally, then watched the blind side played a random board game called quelf and then watched avatar. Afterward in the mornin, I drove home then met up with a long time friend and we had a huge talk while we walked around Binghamton University, drinkin bubble tea. And so the next day we basically had a DTR moment and so i asked her dad if I could court her and so thats what im doin now. I have a girlfriend! who has been a long time friend. which is odd because I never thought something like that would happen.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Been Pretty Busy
I havent been on here as much as I have in the past. I think it has been like 2 weeks almost since I have posted anything. I am really busy now with trying to finish up school and get gradiated (spelt that way on purpose) and just trying to move on in my life. I am hurt and havent ran in 3 weeks, and so I luckily have that time now to devote to my work and other things so I am glad that it works out like that bc I would be tanking in everything now if I was running. Anyways I will let everyone know more about my plans when they are more finite and what I have been up to! until then, Praise God, my rock and my deliverer!
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Causeless Choice
By John W. Hendryx
Libertarians, of course, like to claim that we also base our compatiblism in philosophical assumptions but this assertion simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. There are an endless number of Scriptures that affirm that our choice to believe or reject the gospel is done so of necessity because of our innermost affections and inclinations. For example, in John 3:19 it says that those who reject the gospel do so because the love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated him, or on the other hand did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. We all know that the will ultimately chooses from the desires and affections of the person. Quoting the Old Testment prophet Isaiah, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for the error of choosing without intent by saying, “THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.” This reveals that it is impossible to honor Jesus with a faith that does not also honor Him from the heart. This is not very different from the kind of faith libertarians are describing. Later to another group of those who refused to believe, Jesus shows us what the cause of our choices are when he replied,
"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin...If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does...You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (John 8:34-47)
Jesus continually points to reasons or motives as the determining factor for believing and rejecting the gospel: they are “determined to kill me”, “their heart is far from me”, they “want to carry out their father’s desire” and they reject me because they “do not belong to God.” Libertarian causeless choice is, therefore, an idea foreign to Scripture and basically goes against all sound logic. If our choice to receive Christ is causeless, not arising of necessity from our affections or desire when we see God’s beauty and excellence, then it is made, as it were, out of thin air, for no other reason but that we chose, as if the person wills to choose something he doesn’t want. To give you a real life example of libertarian causeless choice, read the following excerpt from a recent conversation I had with a libertarian where I asked a simple question about why we believe the gospel. I asked,
“If the gospel is preached to two persons and they both receive equal (prevenient) grace, why is it that one man ultimately believes the gospel and not the other? What makes the two people to differ? Was it Jesus Christ that makes them to differ or something else? If both had the same prevenient grace it wasn’t Jesus that made the to differ, so obviously one had a natural advantage over the other.
He answered in classic libertarian fashion, “One heard and understood, one did not. One believed and one did not. That's the nature of free will. Our decisions are not DETERMINED by forces outside of our will. And that's why one man accepts and another rejects Christ.”
Lets take a closer look at his answer. He said that ‘one understood and one did not’ … but where did such understanding come from to begin with? Was this understanding itself derived from nature or from grace? In the libertarian scheme did God grant this understanding so that one believed? We are forced to conclude that He did not, for if He did this for everyone, then both persons would have the same understanding. So we must conclude that, to the libertarian, such spiritual understanding is entirely self-generated, apart from any work of God’s grace in us. Whatever differences there were between the two men, these differences were not derived from grace. Ultimately, it is a reliance on some innate ability in one man, which the other did not have. So we must ask, then, according to libertarianism, was it chance that generated this difference in natural wisdom between the two? Was it random? Or was one man naturally just smarter or wiser than the other? The only two alternatives left to us here are either that one person just happened to understand (‘just because’) by chance, or that one was already better equipped than the other (in his natural self) to respond positively to the gospel command. Neither of these possibilities is aligned with the teaching or intent of the gospel, which is by grace through and through.
Now, in his second answer to why one believed and not the other, He answered, “one believed and the other did not” But I did not ask him what he did, because we all know what he did already from my question, but I asked ‘why’ he believed. Our libertarian friend didn’t really answer the question as I asked it, but he did answer it according to his libertarian philosophy, since he believes that it was not his desires (or anything else) that caused him to choose one way or the other. The will itself is sovereign, in the libertarian view, and has an ability of its own which can ultimately choose apart from any gracious affections of the heart. To a libertarian, he can choose Christ even if he does not desire Him. While the affections may influence the choice, in their view, still the will can chose what it doesn’t want ultimately, which, of course, destroys the unity of the person.
But the answer faces the same difficult question as the first --- did one just happen to believe? My gospel says that only the humble, who recognize that they have no hope in themselves, will embrace Christ and, in like manner, the proud will despise and reject Him. Either sin and virtue, of necessity, precede our choice when Christ is put before us. It is the grace of God that makes us humble, not innate ability or chance. But the libertarian is unwilling to say it was only by God’s grace in Christ because he then would admit to God’s sovereign choice. Nor will he provide an answer that reveals a moral virtue in one person (humility) that the other (who was proud), did not naturally have. This would expose his belief in salvation by merit. But these two answers are the only possible conclusions. So if there is not of necessity any moral reasonor motive that ultimately compels one to believe or not then how could God blame someone for rejecting Him? To believe the gospel is a moral choice, from the heart. If not then God could not call the rejection of the gospel a sin. If our affections do not cause us to believe then belief and unbelief is ultimately non-affectional, not from the heart and rejection could not be considered a sin. But if faith is a moral choice then how did one person get a more moral disposition than the other? One remained proud and the other humble? Was this by nature or by grace? If by grace then why don’t all men have it? If by nature then some people are more virtuous than others apart from grace. This dilemma is really fatal to libertarian free will and none of them have been able to answer these basic questions. The answer ‘just because’ is ludicrous.
Libertarians, of course, like to claim that we also base our compatiblism in philosophical assumptions but this assertion simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. There are an endless number of Scriptures that affirm that our choice to believe or reject the gospel is done so of necessity because of our innermost affections and inclinations. For example, in John 3:19 it says that those who reject the gospel do so because the love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated him, or on the other hand did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. We all know that the will ultimately chooses from the desires and affections of the person. Quoting the Old Testment prophet Isaiah, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for the error of choosing without intent by saying, “THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.” This reveals that it is impossible to honor Jesus with a faith that does not also honor Him from the heart. This is not very different from the kind of faith libertarians are describing. Later to another group of those who refused to believe, Jesus shows us what the cause of our choices are when he replied,
"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin...If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does...You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (John 8:34-47)
Jesus continually points to reasons or motives as the determining factor for believing and rejecting the gospel: they are “determined to kill me”, “their heart is far from me”, they “want to carry out their father’s desire” and they reject me because they “do not belong to God.” Libertarian causeless choice is, therefore, an idea foreign to Scripture and basically goes against all sound logic. If our choice to receive Christ is causeless, not arising of necessity from our affections or desire when we see God’s beauty and excellence, then it is made, as it were, out of thin air, for no other reason but that we chose, as if the person wills to choose something he doesn’t want. To give you a real life example of libertarian causeless choice, read the following excerpt from a recent conversation I had with a libertarian where I asked a simple question about why we believe the gospel. I asked,
“If the gospel is preached to two persons and they both receive equal (prevenient) grace, why is it that one man ultimately believes the gospel and not the other? What makes the two people to differ? Was it Jesus Christ that makes them to differ or something else? If both had the same prevenient grace it wasn’t Jesus that made the to differ, so obviously one had a natural advantage over the other.
He answered in classic libertarian fashion, “One heard and understood, one did not. One believed and one did not. That's the nature of free will. Our decisions are not DETERMINED by forces outside of our will. And that's why one man accepts and another rejects Christ.”
Lets take a closer look at his answer. He said that ‘one understood and one did not’ … but where did such understanding come from to begin with? Was this understanding itself derived from nature or from grace? In the libertarian scheme did God grant this understanding so that one believed? We are forced to conclude that He did not, for if He did this for everyone, then both persons would have the same understanding. So we must conclude that, to the libertarian, such spiritual understanding is entirely self-generated, apart from any work of God’s grace in us. Whatever differences there were between the two men, these differences were not derived from grace. Ultimately, it is a reliance on some innate ability in one man, which the other did not have. So we must ask, then, according to libertarianism, was it chance that generated this difference in natural wisdom between the two? Was it random? Or was one man naturally just smarter or wiser than the other? The only two alternatives left to us here are either that one person just happened to understand (‘just because’) by chance, or that one was already better equipped than the other (in his natural self) to respond positively to the gospel command. Neither of these possibilities is aligned with the teaching or intent of the gospel, which is by grace through and through.
Now, in his second answer to why one believed and not the other, He answered, “one believed and the other did not” But I did not ask him what he did, because we all know what he did already from my question, but I asked ‘why’ he believed. Our libertarian friend didn’t really answer the question as I asked it, but he did answer it according to his libertarian philosophy, since he believes that it was not his desires (or anything else) that caused him to choose one way or the other. The will itself is sovereign, in the libertarian view, and has an ability of its own which can ultimately choose apart from any gracious affections of the heart. To a libertarian, he can choose Christ even if he does not desire Him. While the affections may influence the choice, in their view, still the will can chose what it doesn’t want ultimately, which, of course, destroys the unity of the person.
But the answer faces the same difficult question as the first --- did one just happen to believe? My gospel says that only the humble, who recognize that they have no hope in themselves, will embrace Christ and, in like manner, the proud will despise and reject Him. Either sin and virtue, of necessity, precede our choice when Christ is put before us. It is the grace of God that makes us humble, not innate ability or chance. But the libertarian is unwilling to say it was only by God’s grace in Christ because he then would admit to God’s sovereign choice. Nor will he provide an answer that reveals a moral virtue in one person (humility) that the other (who was proud), did not naturally have. This would expose his belief in salvation by merit. But these two answers are the only possible conclusions. So if there is not of necessity any moral reasonor motive that ultimately compels one to believe or not then how could God blame someone for rejecting Him? To believe the gospel is a moral choice, from the heart. If not then God could not call the rejection of the gospel a sin. If our affections do not cause us to believe then belief and unbelief is ultimately non-affectional, not from the heart and rejection could not be considered a sin. But if faith is a moral choice then how did one person get a more moral disposition than the other? One remained proud and the other humble? Was this by nature or by grace? If by grace then why don’t all men have it? If by nature then some people are more virtuous than others apart from grace. This dilemma is really fatal to libertarian free will and none of them have been able to answer these basic questions. The answer ‘just because’ is ludicrous.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Monergism = Christ Alone
-John W. Hendryx
Recently a visitor seemed deeply troubled that we would equate our belief in Monergism with "Christ alone" -- that by doing so we were being tribal, because this communicates the idea that synergists do not affirm "Christ alone" and to make this claim is to stir up animosity between brothers. But our purpose is not to create bitter feuds, but to be faithful to Scripture on a foundational subject. For those of us who are persuaded of monergism didn't we all come to embrace monergistic regeneration because it best expresses the Biblical data regarding the extent of Christ's work in our salvation?
Doesn't he word "monergism" itself help us understand this concept? The word consists of two main parts: The prefix "mono" means "one", "single", or "alone" while "ergon" means "to work". Taken together it means "the work of one". That is, regeneration is the work of Jesus Christ alone (as applied by the Holy Spirit), not the cooperation of man and God and not the result of unregenerate man meeting a condition (like faith) before regeneration takes place. THE main difference between Monergism & Synergism, then, is that while synergistic theology affirms the necessity of Christ, yet they do not affirm the sufficiency of Christ. That is, synergists do not affirm that Christ provides everything we need for salvation, including a new heart to believe and understand the gospel. (1 Cor 2, John 6:63-65, 37, 44). Christ does most of what we need, but we still need to meet God's condition to be saved. If, as synergists may say, God grants grace to all men, then we must ask, why do some believe and not others? Did some make better use of Christ's grace than others? Does Christ make them to differ or something else (like our decision)? That 'something else' means that Christ may be necessary to them but not sufficient to provide all they need to be saved (including a renewed heart to believe). Thus 'Christ alone', as it was understood in the Reformation, is a monergistic distinctive. His cross is sufficient to provide all we need including the very faith required of us.
Is our faith, therefore, something we can thank God for, or is it the one thing we contribute to the price of our salvation? Is God's love for us conditioned upon whether we believe or not or does His love meet the condition for us in Christ, according to scripture? We affirm that God gives us this condition but Christ does for us what we are unable to do for ourselves. We are not, therefore, partly dependent on Christ for salvation but wholly dependent.
Example: Is God's love like a parent who sees his child run out into traffic and who merely calls out to him to get out of the way or is God's love like the parent who, at the risk of their life, runs out and scoops up the child to MAKE CERTAIN that his child is safe. We all know that true love gets the job done ... it doesn't merely sit on the sidelines when something so critical as ones life is at stake. God's love is unconditional for His people and He sends his Son to make certain His sheep are not lost.
Note: a large percentage of synergists who are Protestants would openly confess that there is no hope save in Christ alone - and for this we embrace them as our beloved brothers in Christ, but the debates come about when their theology blatantly contradicts this good confession, when they believe in Christ PLUS a condition we meet, apart from grace. When we deny the sufficiency of Christ to provide anything (for apart from Christ we can do nothing) then we are not faithfully giving witness to the Scriptural understanding of "Christ alone" .
Michael Haykin rightly said, "It is wrong to suppose that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that storm center of the Reformation, was the crucial question in the minds of such theologians as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and John Calvin. This doctrine was important to the Reformers because it helped to express and to safeguard their answer to another, more vital, question, namely, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ's sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith."
!!!!Also see John's "Eleven(11) resons to reject Libertarian Free Will" !!!!
Monday, March 29, 2010
When the child has no choice
I want everyone to watch this video. I am focused on the part where the man without the microphone brings up the oppression from Christians by giving the example that women are taken of their rights to choose whether to give birth or not to save their lives. He is asked to give an example, where he could not. I will not doubt him that there are women who die from their pregnancy. But, the real question lies not with whether this happens, but whether abortion is justifiable by this statistic.
I have taken the liberty to go and find the statistics myself that the man could not provide. Here is the citation Pregnancy-Related Mortality Surveillance --- United States, 1991--1999 Jeani Chang, M.P.H., Laurie D. Elam-Evans, Ph.D., Cynthia J. Berg, M.D., Joy Herndon, M.S. Division of Reproductive Health National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Here is the web link to it.
As we can see, "During 1991--1999, a total of 4,200 deaths were determined to be pregnancy-related. The overall pregnancy-related mortality ratio was 11.8 deaths per 100,000 live births and ranged from 10.3 in 1991 to 13.2 in 1999." So within a 9 year span or so only 1.18 out of 10,000 births that actually happen does a mother die from her pregnancy.
So does this statistic justify the number of abortions that are being administered? Here is the source for the next statistic. Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2006. Karen Pazol, PhD, Sonya B. Gamble, MS, Wilda Y. Parker, Douglas A. Cook, MBIS, Suzanne B. Zane, DVM, Saeed Hamdan, MD, PhD. Division of Reproductive Health National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Here is the link.
"For 2006, a total of 846,181 abortions were reported to CDC. Among the 46 areas that provided data consistently during 1996--2006, a total of 835,134 abortions (98.7% of the total) were reported; the abortion rate was 16.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and the abortion ratio was 236 abortions per 1,000 live births"
So compared to the total tally of just one year, there are about 850,000 abortions annually compared to the 4,200 childbearing caused deaths within one decade! And this statistic is only for the reported abortions. The numbers do not match up. The number of abortions are far greater than the number of deaths of mothers caused by childbirth. Now can we compare how many women die from giving birth to the number of women who die from having an abortion?
"One out of every 6,000 women who have an abortion after 21 weeks gestation die.
One out of every 166,000 abortions ends in death. Just under one out of every 100 abortions has a serious complication."
[Source: AGI, 1998. Note: These figures may be low due to under-reporting of deaths due to abortions.]
So now we see that there about as much or more death and complication due to having an abortion for the woman as naturally giving birth to the child, except in the case of naturally giving birth the child has a shot at living while in the other, both the mother and the child die.
Should we use the excuse that women are just protecting their lives by aborting their child? Or, is this just an excuse to justify the many women who a selfishly irresponsible and do not wish to suffer their consequence? Granted I don't even believe it to be a consequence but a gracious gift to have a child. Also I know there are some who argue for "what if the woman was raped, etc." I still hold that having a child is a blessing, and that though it is unexpected and a burden un asked for in the womans life, there are other ways of handling the situation rather taking the unborn childs opprotunity to live. To take the childs life for that childs sake also is a completely illogical reason also. To claim to know the horrible life the child may suffer by being given life is opperating upon your personal sovereignty that you do not have and so would be irresponsible to even say what is good for the child when you cannot opperate on the basis of knowing what kind of life that child may live.
So here are some statistics to see and to remember when you think that women are the ones who need to be protected, as Todd Freil states in the video above, that the one not being considered here is the child.
I have taken the liberty to go and find the statistics myself that the man could not provide. Here is the citation Pregnancy-Related Mortality Surveillance --- United States, 1991--1999 Jeani Chang, M.P.H., Laurie D. Elam-Evans, Ph.D., Cynthia J. Berg, M.D., Joy Herndon, M.S. Division of Reproductive Health National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Here is the web link to it.
As we can see, "During 1991--1999, a total of 4,200 deaths were determined to be pregnancy-related. The overall pregnancy-related mortality ratio was 11.8 deaths per 100,000 live births and ranged from 10.3 in 1991 to 13.2 in 1999." So within a 9 year span or so only 1.18 out of 10,000 births that actually happen does a mother die from her pregnancy.
So does this statistic justify the number of abortions that are being administered? Here is the source for the next statistic. Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2006. Karen Pazol, PhD, Sonya B. Gamble, MS, Wilda Y. Parker, Douglas A. Cook, MBIS, Suzanne B. Zane, DVM, Saeed Hamdan, MD, PhD. Division of Reproductive Health National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Here is the link.
"For 2006, a total of 846,181 abortions were reported to CDC. Among the 46 areas that provided data consistently during 1996--2006, a total of 835,134 abortions (98.7% of the total) were reported; the abortion rate was 16.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and the abortion ratio was 236 abortions per 1,000 live births"
So compared to the total tally of just one year, there are about 850,000 abortions annually compared to the 4,200 childbearing caused deaths within one decade! And this statistic is only for the reported abortions. The numbers do not match up. The number of abortions are far greater than the number of deaths of mothers caused by childbirth. Now can we compare how many women die from giving birth to the number of women who die from having an abortion?
"One out of every 6,000 women who have an abortion after 21 weeks gestation die.
One out of every 166,000 abortions ends in death. Just under one out of every 100 abortions has a serious complication."
[Source: AGI, 1998. Note: These figures may be low due to under-reporting of deaths due to abortions.]
So now we see that there about as much or more death and complication due to having an abortion for the woman as naturally giving birth to the child, except in the case of naturally giving birth the child has a shot at living while in the other, both the mother and the child die.
Should we use the excuse that women are just protecting their lives by aborting their child? Or, is this just an excuse to justify the many women who a selfishly irresponsible and do not wish to suffer their consequence? Granted I don't even believe it to be a consequence but a gracious gift to have a child. Also I know there are some who argue for "what if the woman was raped, etc." I still hold that having a child is a blessing, and that though it is unexpected and a burden un asked for in the womans life, there are other ways of handling the situation rather taking the unborn childs opprotunity to live. To take the childs life for that childs sake also is a completely illogical reason also. To claim to know the horrible life the child may suffer by being given life is opperating upon your personal sovereignty that you do not have and so would be irresponsible to even say what is good for the child when you cannot opperate on the basis of knowing what kind of life that child may live.
So here are some statistics to see and to remember when you think that women are the ones who need to be protected, as Todd Freil states in the video above, that the one not being considered here is the child.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
A couple things...
So like I said before I am beat up right now. I cannot remember if I put down in that post that my knee hurts but it still hurts and I cannot run right now. If this continues, I will probably go get a cortasone shot to calm down the inflamation that is causing the pain.
Secondly, our school is located right next to a cemetary. For the two years I have been here I have never seen a funeral take place in that cemetary, until the other day. Now there is more to the cemetary than what we can see from the library, but this funeral took place litterally right next to the fence that seperated the cemetary from the school. It was kind of odd to have seen life continue on at the school people playing their music loudly in their cars as they drove by, people walking to and from class talking about their days. This is all going on while life had ceased on the other side of the fence about 10 feet from us, as a family mourned the death of their loved one. This all just seemed strange to me. Seeing this contrast happening within feet of each other. As I walked by it, I just thought to myself, I hope that person heard and responded to the Gospel. But, I know if they had not, that it would be to God's purpose either way! For Christ is able to save the uttermost, all those whom are called. Not one shall perish who are given to the Son.
Also, I applied to work at Covenant College down in Georgia as a Cross Country Coach. I hope I get the job because that would be sweet to work at that college doing something I love to do and be able to make a living. I am also going to apply to Grad-school here at Cortland. I will be in the Kinesiology M.A. program. If I do that I am thinking about living over at winter street and volunteer coaching with the team here.
So thats what I had to say, a couple things to catch everyone up on whats going on and what I was thinkin bout.
Secondly, our school is located right next to a cemetary. For the two years I have been here I have never seen a funeral take place in that cemetary, until the other day. Now there is more to the cemetary than what we can see from the library, but this funeral took place litterally right next to the fence that seperated the cemetary from the school. It was kind of odd to have seen life continue on at the school people playing their music loudly in their cars as they drove by, people walking to and from class talking about their days. This is all going on while life had ceased on the other side of the fence about 10 feet from us, as a family mourned the death of their loved one. This all just seemed strange to me. Seeing this contrast happening within feet of each other. As I walked by it, I just thought to myself, I hope that person heard and responded to the Gospel. But, I know if they had not, that it would be to God's purpose either way! For Christ is able to save the uttermost, all those whom are called. Not one shall perish who are given to the Son.
Also, I applied to work at Covenant College down in Georgia as a Cross Country Coach. I hope I get the job because that would be sweet to work at that college doing something I love to do and be able to make a living. I am also going to apply to Grad-school here at Cortland. I will be in the Kinesiology M.A. program. If I do that I am thinking about living over at winter street and volunteer coaching with the team here.
So thats what I had to say, a couple things to catch everyone up on whats going on and what I was thinkin bout.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Beat up
So most of you know I twisted my ankle and sprained it a couple weeks ago. Though I am fortunate to run on it, it is popping alot when I run on it and it is not 100 percent. granted it continually is getting better. My other foot though is going through a rough time also. my ankle on that foot is a little sore and I feel like one of my metatarsals on that foot is sore. Where the achillis tendon connects to the heel of each foot are sore and have been for a long time. I have been wanted to start doing morning runs but when I wake up, I can barely walk and the afternoon is prime to run because it provided enough circulation and movement to loosen everything up to run. I am sort of a mess right now but this may be my last season and I dont want this season to be like previous last seasons where I dont get to finish it... like my senior track season in highschool or my last cross country season at Delhi.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Denied but ok with it
Well, I was denied tonight by someone I like. I also was recently denied to PT school. I also have had alot of missed opprotunities this year in runnin such as making it to indoor nationals or becoming all-american in cross country. I wanted to mention this because I have to proclaim the Gospel and not this prosperity gospel that is not really even the gospel... sorry Osteen but it's not. I have to say that in my knowledge of the Gospel, I can accept these things that have been happening to me with hope and endurance. I know that God works all thing for good to those who love Him, but I also know that His ways are not our ways. So I must take things in trust and hope to know that if I am truly ment for someone or something, it will happen and it will be good whatever and whoever that happens to be. My second point is where the Gospel truly comes in, because not only do I have assurance in Christ about God providing for me but that I am provided the greatest gift of all... Faith! Given to me by grace not of my own works or merrit, but of God who purposed it. In that faith I have justification and since I am justified I am no longer condemned. And so, I have peace with God so that though I may suffer in this dying world or accel, I am right with God through the propitiation of my sins through Christ who interceeds before the Father on my behalf. I can now live for God with the God working within me through His Spirit which I have also recieved by grace, replacing my hard heart that rebelled against God, with a heart of flesh that truly lives. So these things have happened to me... Praise God!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Why is Christianity Exclusive?
The other day I had the opprotunity to talk to a fellow Christian about my beliefs infront of an unbeliever, and so the result of that came to me basically trying to be clear to both of them about what Christianity is. The unbeliever was asking alot of questions about why our faith and belief is the only true "exclusive" belief and all others are wrong. While my fellow brother in Christ is a synergist. I had my hands full for the night. We were discussing this over food and my friends pointed out to me that I hadn't even touched my food. But how could I when I am trying to proclaim the Gospel to an unbeliever while clarifying the mistakes my brother in Christ was making because of his synergistic tendencies.
Well, to cut straight to the matter, there was a phrase in my head that keeps ringing over and over that he and many other Christians like to repeat. Many of you have heard of this phrase "it is not religion, it is a relationship." As if relationships make the difference between religion and Christianity. Cannot religions display a relationship with their god, gods, or no gods? Granted many do not have that relationship, being caught up in their works righteousness, but is not being a relationship work? This constant giving and receiving? I believe that Christianity is also a religion. By definition it is a set of beliefs and practices that people have concerning the cause of nature and the universe. So as Christians we have a belief and we have a set of practices such as the Lords supper and communion with one another coming together in worship. So what is it that makes Christianity exclusive?
The answer is not that we have a relationship (granted we do have one), but that we have the Gospel. A God centered belief as opposed to a man centered belief. What the Gospel says is not what other religions say, "do this and that and you will gain this" but that God has done everything and that we are gathered in belief of that. It is not about "What would Jesus do?" but "What has Jesus Done".
This is why I needed to clear the synergistic belief that we are the cause to our faith in which saves us. Because it is a monergistic work of God. God descends to us and gives us what we need. There is nothing we can do to ascend to Him. Our belief is a result of our regeneration which is the gracious act of God replacing our hearts of stone with a heart of flesh. Our justification is a result of the righteousness that is Christ's and is imputed to us by the faith we have recieved. And we have our relationship with God because we are continually being sanctified by the Holy Spirit working within us, creating within us fruits of righteousness. In Romans 8:28 it says "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." We see that it is God who does all these things! God has done everything for us! We have been freed from our selves which was dead to our sinful nature, and so we now have peace with God who has always loved us. "Twas not that I did choose thee for Lord that could not be...this knowing, if I love Thee, Thou must have loved me first".
Christianity is exclusive because it is Gospel! not because it is relationship.
P.S. Just to let all those know that are among the Christians who say this phrase, I do not hate you or mean to demean you in anyway but I am simply correcting the statement made. As said in Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Let our relationship with God be Gospel Driven and may our focus be on what God has done for that is what sticks us out from everyone else!
Well, to cut straight to the matter, there was a phrase in my head that keeps ringing over and over that he and many other Christians like to repeat. Many of you have heard of this phrase "it is not religion, it is a relationship." As if relationships make the difference between religion and Christianity. Cannot religions display a relationship with their god, gods, or no gods? Granted many do not have that relationship, being caught up in their works righteousness, but is not being a relationship work? This constant giving and receiving? I believe that Christianity is also a religion. By definition it is a set of beliefs and practices that people have concerning the cause of nature and the universe. So as Christians we have a belief and we have a set of practices such as the Lords supper and communion with one another coming together in worship. So what is it that makes Christianity exclusive?
The answer is not that we have a relationship (granted we do have one), but that we have the Gospel. A God centered belief as opposed to a man centered belief. What the Gospel says is not what other religions say, "do this and that and you will gain this" but that God has done everything and that we are gathered in belief of that. It is not about "What would Jesus do?" but "What has Jesus Done".
This is why I needed to clear the synergistic belief that we are the cause to our faith in which saves us. Because it is a monergistic work of God. God descends to us and gives us what we need. There is nothing we can do to ascend to Him. Our belief is a result of our regeneration which is the gracious act of God replacing our hearts of stone with a heart of flesh. Our justification is a result of the righteousness that is Christ's and is imputed to us by the faith we have recieved. And we have our relationship with God because we are continually being sanctified by the Holy Spirit working within us, creating within us fruits of righteousness. In Romans 8:28 it says "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." We see that it is God who does all these things! God has done everything for us! We have been freed from our selves which was dead to our sinful nature, and so we now have peace with God who has always loved us. "Twas not that I did choose thee for Lord that could not be...this knowing, if I love Thee, Thou must have loved me first".
Christianity is exclusive because it is Gospel! not because it is relationship.
P.S. Just to let all those know that are among the Christians who say this phrase, I do not hate you or mean to demean you in anyway but I am simply correcting the statement made. As said in Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Let our relationship with God be Gospel Driven and may our focus be on what God has done for that is what sticks us out from everyone else!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The actual song of the week!!!
Read the words. If you are a Christian, this is in full what our hearts crumble to because of what we have been given through Grace. If you are not a Christian, this is what we have in Christ! If you feel a pull to this Grace, it is God graciously drawing you to it and it is for you! You will be called a child of God, and judgement will never come upon you by Him who judges!
Becoming a PTA
Well, today when I was on my way home from class, my mother texted me and told me she got my acceptance letter to Broome CC to their Physical Therapist Assistant program. So I guess I will be doing that. I looked at the courses I will need to take and I have already taken some. I wont graduate from it early though but it will lighten the load semester to semester. So I will be living with my parents for 2 more years. I am going to try becoming a volunteer assistant coach at Binghamton University for their cross and track team so that I can get experience and possibly get a University coaching job in the future. I am USATF certified to coach track and my B.A. in Kinesiology is usually preferred what they look for. So I may be able to be a PTA and a coach or just have the option when opprotunities present themselves. For my own running I think I will start training to run a half marathon in the fall for Broome. Run the NJCAA national half-marathon championships since I never did at Delhi, I still have the eligability for that. If not I may just train for one on my own then get ready to run open... "semi-professionally" on the track and see how my times will fair. I will rep the Red Mules! Anyways I think that is the plan unless the Lord leads me elsewhere.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Praise Be to God for His Gospel!
I am so thankful for what I have been given in Jesus Christ that I cannot compare anything to it. I have been thinking about how much I am not capable of doing anything good and pleasing to God without God enacting in me with His Spirit. I am a sinner and continue to sin. I am a lustful, hateful, egotistical, self relying man who would be crushed by the wrath of God had it not been for God calling me to His Son in whom I have peace, forgiveness, and justification! I am at a point in my life where I want to experience what the world has to offer more then what God has to offer. I look at the things in which would be truly good in God's sight and think "I am not capable." But, God has enabled me through His Spirit. The Spirit turns within me, sanctifying me and conforming me more and more to the image of Christ, whom I am in and who is in me. I say these things because I look at the things that I want and do not believe I am capable of acheiving them in a God honoring fashion. I do not want to be around others at times because I know that in doing so I may fail to represent that grace which I have been given. I do not want to pursue a sister in Christ for fear of not being able to treat her the way she deserves or that I will only lust after her instead of love her. I find myself not wanting to take up my responsibilities as a man should. I want to give up because I feel burdened. But, Why do I feel this way? I should not have to because no matter what, it is not I who works but it is God through His Spirit that works for me. I must rest in the peace in which this truth brings. That I am already in Christ and that if "God is for us(those in Christ), who could be against us?" I see my weak faith and it must be even so that weak faith or strong is better then no faith at all. "For by grace, through faith are we saved." Not of our works, and so the works I do are a result of this faith and does not create the faith. They are an extension of God's Grace "that I shall live to Thee." This thought comforts me that there is nothing I can do to make God love me more or love me less, because God is the source of where I stand before Him. That however my life is played out, that it is always to God's Glory because from God is was the righteousness that was needed for me to enter His Glory, and from God is the works that come to further Glorify Him, and that even in my unrighteousness, God has given me a heart of flesh that mourns over the evil deeds commited and drives me to Him again and again!
Sunday, March 7, 2010
More Battle Wounds
On top of last weeks bruise to the thigh, I also sprained my ankle at ECAC's. I was feeling great and in control of my race and getting onto the straight away before we hit 800 meters, I stepped on the back of someones foot enough to turn my ankle. I hobbled a little bit to see if I could regain balance and continue running but all I could do was limp. I hobbled over to the inside of the track and just sat there holding my ankle as my coach, a meet official, and a trainer came over to me. My coach thought I had rehurt my achillis and I assured him this was not the case. I had just truned my ankle so hard I couldnt put much pressure on it. I felt really bad as the runners came around the next lap and Kyle and Matt Knott just looked down at me wondering what had happened to me. I didn't want them to see me like that because I wanted them to worry about themselves and their own race.
My Collegiate Indoor Career is now over(unless I find away to use my last bit of eligability next year). It had to end the way most of my careers have ended, with an injury and coming up shy of my goals. Like my senior year in highschool, my season ended with an injury a month before the season truly ended, or my last cross country season at SUNY Delhi ended about when it began with a stress fracture. I do have to say though, this time I am not as disappointed. Why? Most people would be crushed when they hurt themselves as they had one last shot to attempt qualifying for Nationals. One reason is, I have outdoor track still and so I really have more chances for that. The other reason is that I know I have gained more then I have ever deserved through God's Grace! I dont even deserve to be alive right now none the less deserve to go to a National Championship. I also have more then I could ask for in the saving blood of Jesus who is my Lord and Savior! So am I disappointed? Yes, who wouldnt be? But with this assurance and possesion, I have all I need, and to have gone to Nationals would have only been an bigger extension of the grace in which I already have!
My Collegiate Indoor Career is now over(unless I find away to use my last bit of eligability next year). It had to end the way most of my careers have ended, with an injury and coming up shy of my goals. Like my senior year in highschool, my season ended with an injury a month before the season truly ended, or my last cross country season at SUNY Delhi ended about when it began with a stress fracture. I do have to say though, this time I am not as disappointed. Why? Most people would be crushed when they hurt themselves as they had one last shot to attempt qualifying for Nationals. One reason is, I have outdoor track still and so I really have more chances for that. The other reason is that I know I have gained more then I have ever deserved through God's Grace! I dont even deserve to be alive right now none the less deserve to go to a National Championship. I also have more then I could ask for in the saving blood of Jesus who is my Lord and Savior! So am I disappointed? Yes, who wouldnt be? But with this assurance and possesion, I have all I need, and to have gone to Nationals would have only been an bigger extension of the grace in which I already have!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Battle Wounds
Thought I would take a picture of the bruise from the workout that I ran on Tuesday. Woke up at 7:30 to do the workout with Kyle O'Brien at 8am in Lusk Field House. There happened to be a track and field class being taught by our throws coach in there and they were doing hurdles. Well I came down the final stretch of my last 200 and there were a bunch of students standing in my way and hurdles on both sides of them. I was full bore sprinting as fast as I can so by the time I saw them in my way, there was not enough time for them to react to my yelling "watch out!" I dodged 2 people clipped one guy and clipped a hurdle with my thy. This is what came of me clipping that hurdle. Granted it did not hurt when it happened and by the time I got back home all I felt was really tight in that spot when walking up and down the stairs. By the way this picture barely does justice to how black and blue it was yesterday when it happened.
I know the Strongest Man in the World
a friend of mine who runs with me durring the summer and coaches a couple of us with tempos durring that time looks exactly like Artie from the Nick show from the 90's Pete and Pete. Which by the way if someone every wanted to get me a gift, a DVD season of that show would be the most awesome gift ever! Anyways here is a picture of Artie and a video for you all to watch to know why I would love to have this show to watch whenever I want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
