As many of my friends know, I have a serious guilty pleasure when it comes to music. My favorite artist is with out a doubt The Dave Matthews Band. I am not sure why i have this un-natural love of them. Some say I have a man crush on Dave Matthews and that might be true but the music just speaks to me. I say all that to say I now have a number 2 on my list.
I have liked Todd Agnew for sometime just as many other. It started my dear friend Brooke Hall, God rest her soul, lost her life to cancer at the age of 22. She was an amazing woman of God. She was so amazing that she planned her own funeral and not only did she plan it but she made it a worship experience and took the focus off her death and put it on the right spot....life in Jesus Christ. But at her funeral she had Grace Like Rain played. The song spoke to me on that day and since then I have like Todd Agnew.
Well this weekend at Six Flag he preformed. Now anyone who has every run sound or tech for a concert knows how horrible a "change of the bands" is and can understand when I say the change went horrible. Nothing patched correctly and so when they started the set nothing worked. They finished the first song and Todd began to stall. What came after this was amazing. I heard a sermon to the likes I have never heard before. I mean I have been to a number of churches in the resent years and never heard anything that challenged me more. I would pay to hear him speak much less hear his music. But with that said as they start get things finished in the world of sound he picked up his guitar and started to lead in worship and it was one of the most amazing times of worship I have been apart of in a long time. The spirit moved and you know what, it did matter what church you attended or denomination you claimed to be....all that mattered at that time was the un-matched love of Jesus and what He has done for us.
One final thing that moved me....As he was stalling he made this statement, "God didn't call me hear tonight to make you feel good. God brought me here tonight to challenge and change you." Some people in the crowd(including myself) yelled AMEN and he said(and I won't ever forget this), "hold on now....you better be careful because God will hold you to that." Far to often when we hear something that is true we scream out AMEN as if we knew it but the truth of the matter is that I nor did anyone else in that crowd before that truly believe that God was going to change us. Well he changed me and I don't mean that lightly.
I am drinking the Todd Agnew Kool-Aid!!!
Monday, July 23, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Al Molher repondes to the Catholic Church
Not very often do I read a blog entry by Al Molher and come away thinking "WOW he really hit the nail on the head on this one." Now in that statement I am not saying I am smarter or have been more enlightened to the ways of God more so than him but merely pointing out that on a diverse issues of theology we differ. The beauty of this is we can. But I am off point. He wrote an article on his blog this morning about the document put out by the Roman Catholic Church(The Vatican) claiming that they are the only true church due to the papacy and the fact that Peter was the first "Pope". Now most chruches founded from the reformation do not recognize this as truth according to scripture. You can agree or not but his entry about this is 100% on target and he as a key voice for Southern Baptist did exactly as he should have done. Read this article and I think you will see what I mean.
So I must say Thank You Al Mohler to putting this issue in to the right context and having such a great insight in to how we as "protestants" should respond.
So I must say Thank You Al Mohler to putting this issue in to the right context and having such a great insight in to how we as "protestants" should respond.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Sad Day!
Dan Patrick is leaving ESPN. Thus no more ESPN Radio Dan Patrick Show. I am very sad by this because I love to listen to him during the middle of the work day. I am SAD!
Dan Patrick Leaves ESPN
Dan Patrick Leaves ESPN
Monday, July 09, 2007
Interesting debate on Baptism
Ok.. I have been involved in an interesting discussion on some blogs about the act of baptism and thus I feel a need to make a short post on it. This will be quick as I do not feel that the debate on this topic is generally helpful anymore nor do I feel like any resolution will be come too.
The discussion is about the forms of baptism in the Christain churches ie immersion, sprinking, pouring. Are all of these forms acceptable and if not why? These topics can range and can get very heated and i have experienced myself. The simple point I have tried to make was the Jesus was baptized by immersion. It is amazing to me the number of people who want to debate this text in Matthew 14 but if you do a little, very little research, in to the words used in the Greek you find the word in the original text was baptizo. The root word for baptizo is the word bapto. Now people want to argue the context of baptism of Jesus simply because Mark and Luke do not account the baptism of Jesus of coming "out of the water" This is clearly stated in a way in the greek that should not be confused. If that is a dogmatic and legalist way of reading the scriptures so be it but let me make my point a little more.
Definition
Bapto: to dip, dip in, immerse
Baptizo:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
Commentary on both words:
"Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.). John's was a baptism of repentance (xiii. 24; xix. 4), as was also Christian baptism (ii. 38), but as John's pointed forward to Jesus (xix. 4), it became obsolete when He came. Christian baptism followed faith in the Lord Jesus (xvi. 31 ff.); it was associated with His name (ii. 38; viii. 16, etc.), which was invoked by the person baptized (xxii. 16); it signified the remission (ii. 38) or washing away of sins (xxii. 16); sometimes it preceded (ii. 38; viii. 15 ff.; xix. 5), sometimes followed (x. 47 f.) the receiving of the Spirit." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 98, n. 1.)
This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
Final point. Why is this such a source of debate for people? Why do people want to pour or sprinkle for baptism instead of following the model of Jesus. I can see a few extreme situations, new believer no in a place where immersion could happen, where this would be challenging but plain and simple in the church today this situation isn't a problem on a large scale. Everyone basicaly has the opportunity to be immersed. I don't care how many people want to argue the context of the Baptism of Jesus it doesn't hold up. The words of Matthew speak for themselves so I don't have to argue context on that.
The discussion is about the forms of baptism in the Christain churches ie immersion, sprinking, pouring. Are all of these forms acceptable and if not why? These topics can range and can get very heated and i have experienced myself. The simple point I have tried to make was the Jesus was baptized by immersion. It is amazing to me the number of people who want to debate this text in Matthew 14 but if you do a little, very little research, in to the words used in the Greek you find the word in the original text was baptizo. The root word for baptizo is the word bapto. Now people want to argue the context of baptism of Jesus simply because Mark and Luke do not account the baptism of Jesus of coming "out of the water" This is clearly stated in a way in the greek that should not be confused. If that is a dogmatic and legalist way of reading the scriptures so be it but let me make my point a little more.
Definition
Bapto: to dip, dip in, immerse
Baptizo:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
Commentary on both words:
"Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.). John's was a baptism of repentance (xiii. 24; xix. 4), as was also Christian baptism (ii. 38), but as John's pointed forward to Jesus (xix. 4), it became obsolete when He came. Christian baptism followed faith in the Lord Jesus (xvi. 31 ff.); it was associated with His name (ii. 38; viii. 16, etc.), which was invoked by the person baptized (xxii. 16); it signified the remission (ii. 38) or washing away of sins (xxii. 16); sometimes it preceded (ii. 38; viii. 15 ff.; xix. 5), sometimes followed (x. 47 f.) the receiving of the Spirit." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 98, n. 1.)
This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
Final point. Why is this such a source of debate for people? Why do people want to pour or sprinkle for baptism instead of following the model of Jesus. I can see a few extreme situations, new believer no in a place where immersion could happen, where this would be challenging but plain and simple in the church today this situation isn't a problem on a large scale. Everyone basicaly has the opportunity to be immersed. I don't care how many people want to argue the context of the Baptism of Jesus it doesn't hold up. The words of Matthew speak for themselves so I don't have to argue context on that.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
1st and 2nd Commandments
1st commandment - "Thou shall have no other gods before me" Exo 20:3
Seems like a reletively easy commandment to follow in my opinion. Not a lot of meat to dig in to on the surface but let us look a little below the surface by asking a few questions and hopefully a few of you readers will respond to this.
Question: In this command is God acknowledging the existence of other "gods"? and if so what are some of these "gods"
The word that we translate for before is also used in the Old and New Testaments for a different word....besides! This word surely changes the way this commandment reads.
Question: So if God is or isn't acknowledging the existence of other "gods" why did he feel the need to give this command?
The men teaching in my bible study almost compounded the 1st and 2nd commmandments on a surface level to answer these questions and I am curious if I am the only one who really doesn't think that these two commands are explanation for one another.
2nd commandment - "You shall not make for yourself and idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above and on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth" Exo 20:4
Question :What is an idol?
Websters defines it like this which I like : "an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed." SO an idol is a representation of a believed to exist deity or god. So an idol is not a god thus you can not link these two commandments together on that foot. They are separate and they can stand alone with out using one another as an explanation.
Final Question : Are material objects such as a car or cloths idols? aka is the "American Lifestyle" a "god"?
Seems like a reletively easy commandment to follow in my opinion. Not a lot of meat to dig in to on the surface but let us look a little below the surface by asking a few questions and hopefully a few of you readers will respond to this.
Question: In this command is God acknowledging the existence of other "gods"? and if so what are some of these "gods"
The word that we translate for before is also used in the Old and New Testaments for a different word....besides! This word surely changes the way this commandment reads.
Question: So if God is or isn't acknowledging the existence of other "gods" why did he feel the need to give this command?
The men teaching in my bible study almost compounded the 1st and 2nd commmandments on a surface level to answer these questions and I am curious if I am the only one who really doesn't think that these two commands are explanation for one another.
2nd commandment - "You shall not make for yourself and idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above and on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth" Exo 20:4
Question :What is an idol?
Websters defines it like this which I like : "an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed." SO an idol is a representation of a believed to exist deity or god. So an idol is not a god thus you can not link these two commandments together on that foot. They are separate and they can stand alone with out using one another as an explanation.
Final Question : Are material objects such as a car or cloths idols? aka is the "American Lifestyle" a "god"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)