Ephesians 1:3 — a few thoughts

My daily reading had me in Ephesians 1, a familiar and favorite passage. It seemed a good idea to share just a few thoughts with you from verse 3 —

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ

Blessed! the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ.... [DJP]

Thought the first: the threefold repetition of different words for "bless(ing)" should caution us against always assuming that every word has exactly the same meaning every time it's used. Here, the same author in the same breath uses the word in two senses. When applied to us (the second two uses) it means something like "to bestow a boon"; when applied to God, it means something like "to give praise and glory for bestowing boons."

Thought the second: every one of these blessings are the possession of every last genuine Christian, with no further distinction. Unlike Pentecostals and Deeper-Lifers, Paul never envisions a two-tier Christianity. To him, there are only two tiers, period: in Christ, outside of Christ. In Christ, one possesses every one of the spiritual blessings of which he speaks.

(I develop this a bit more in The World-Tilting Gospel. < /shameless plug >)

Thought the third: the blessings are expressly said to be spiritual. Paul knows full well that God has not, in this life, blessed us with every worldly blessing. Far from it (1 Corinthians 1:26-28).

But it is clear that the apostle's perspective is that, in being blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ, our lot is far better from those who have been blessed with every worldly blessing outside of Christ.

Thought the fourth: note that Paul goes on to detail what he means by "every spiritual blessing." He means election, adoption, redemption, predestination. Those who kick at those Biblical truths are kicking at God's richest provisions for all His children.

Thought the fifth: Paul is, as we see in chapters 5 and 6, writing to husbands, wives, slaves, slave-owners, and children. And what does he write about, in writing to these people? Spiritual truths in the heavenlies. To be specific, he writes to children, to slaves, to ill-educated commoners, about election and predestination and God's plan for the ages. There is no sign that he would have had any patience with those who hold back those truths as too advanced, meaty, or deep for common Christians.

Thought the sixth: this blessed truth, which drives Paul to praise, is true of you and me if we are in Christ, period, without further qualification. If you are out of work, all this is true of you.  If you are in a rough marriage, all this is true of you. If you are in poor health, all this is true of you. If your kids are breaking your hearts, all this is true of you. Nothing on earth can alter or affect this truth.

But only if you are in Christ.

Are you?

If so... blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Scientists are baffled!

My friend and brother, Missionary to Honduras Mike Pettengill, sent me a series of articles with a single theme: Scientists Baffled! I've added a few of my own. Here you go:

1. Voyager 2 is now sending back signals in an unknown data format. What is it saying to us? Scientists are baffled!
2. The fakir is not a fakir! An Indian religious-type guy went 10 days without eating, drinking, or eliminating, in a tightly-controlled environment. How did he do it? Scientists are baffled!
3. How did the statues on Easter Island get moved around? Nobody knows! Scientists are baffled! (Money-quotation: " like many other archaeologists, he was so swayed by his cast iron belief that the roads were for transportation – he completely ignored them.”)
4. A grey whale off the coast of Israel, when they are only known to roam the Pacific Ocean? How did that happen? Nobody knows! Scientists are baffled! (Money-quotation: "The best guess from Scheinin is global warming played a role.")
5. A rooster named Gianni used to wake up his owners with his crowing. Then a fox killed all the hens. Then Gianni started laying eggs. Huh? Yep. He'd become a hen. How'd that happen Nobody knows! Scientists are baffled!
6. The planet Jupiter has all these stripes, right? These bands? Yeah, well now it suddenly has one less! Huh? How'd that happen? Nobody knows. Scientists are baffled! (Oh, and btw: it wasn't a professional scientist who noticed it. It was an amateur astronomer.)

Golly, there's so much scientists don't know, don't understand!

Well, except evolution, of course. Stung by years of folks pointing out that evolution is a theory incapable of demonstration or falsification, they have officially elevated it to a Fact. Not just a Fact, but a Fact without which absolutely no science of any sort can be done. So there! They're sure about that. And that the Bible's wrong about... well, about whatever. And that God is irrelevant to the most important areas of thought. About those things, they're dead-sure.


For instance: brand-new study "finds" (not guesses, speculates, or hypothesizes) that all life came from a single-celled organism. Well, not only that... but creationism is an "absolutely horrible hypothesis." And creationists are weenies who won't respond when given a chance. So... so there! Will you religious people please go back into hiding and cede us the floor?


Same time I saw that article, I saw another listing six more things scientists can't explain. (Not linking, because that site contains too many offensive images and invitations.)


All very interesting, isn't it? When they're off-guard, you see a constant flow of stories about scientists being "baffled," or divided, or revising their long-held certain and sure theories.

But here's the thing. Without admitting it, many scientists commit to a religious philosophy called Materialism, which assumes God out of existence. So assuming, they lose the claim to speak with authority on anything.

Was that a leap? Not at all. Scientists cannot claim to be omniscient. They cannot claim access to an authority in complete command of all facts without exception. They just hypothesize, guess, speculate, from atom to atom.

Therefore they cannot (with credibility) make a unified theory of anything. How do they know that one of these "baffling" phenomena does not contain a fact that will undo everything they think? They don't. How do they know that such a fact does not exist in the thousands of acres of Earth not yet explored, let alone in the universe? They don't.

But you say, they proceed empirically, by experimentation. Correct — experiments resting on mountains of unproven and unprovable assumptions. The whole notion of "experimentation" assumes a continuity to the universe that they have no right to assume, on their premises. Do a test, and X occurs. What have you proven? That X occurred once. Repeat the test 300 times, and X occurs each time. What have you proven? That X occurred 300 times. Nothing more, nothing less.

Further, you don't really know what caused X to occur. The whole notion of causation is itself an assumption, unproven and unprovable.

So next time you read, "Scientists baffled," just think to yourself, "More than you know, buddy. A whole lot more."

The Christian's stance is identical, and different. Natively, he does not possess one grain, one atom more information. He's not a tick smarter nor brighter.

However, the Biblically-faithful Christian (A) admits the fact at the outset, (B) has recourse to a Source who actually is in command not only of all conceivable facts, ever, but also of the significance of all conceivable facts, ever. That is because He created them. And (C) He has taken the initiative to reveal everything we need to know to have a relationship with Him.

And that is the Christian's stance.

30:1 The words of Agur son of Jakeh. The oracle.

The man declares, I am weary, O God;
I am weary, O God, and worn out.
2 Surely I am too stupid to be a man.
I have not the understanding of a man.
3 I have not learned wisdom,
nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.
4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his son's name?
Surely you know!

5 Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

(Proverbs 30:1-6)

UPDATE: M'man Frank tag-teams, which is always a good thing in my book.

My comment on Longman's shrug about the historicity of Adam

Justin Taylor, who (A) has a new site and (B) continues to display his maddening ability to find some of the most noteworthy, newsworthy items all over The Interwebs, yesterday linked to a vid where Tremper Longman (the third!) basically says "Adam-schmadam! Nice story, though." (Later, Justin also linked to a fine article detailing twelve reasons for treating Adam as an historical person.)

The former article engendered a lively discussion in which yr obdt svt took part. After a couple of dismissive comments, I added the following which, to prevent it being completely buried, I share with you (slightly edited):

The presumption of many folks like Longman (here) and his defenders is that we can shave off some select unpopular Biblical teachings here, without a negative impact on other equally-unpopular Biblical teachings there.

A secondary presumption is that any reading that today's flock of intelligentsia do not consider sufficiently "sophisticated" or "nuanced" should eo ipso be left at the roadside.

Unfortunately for both of those assumptions, there is a steady core of us Evangelicals who do remember history that stretches back more than ten years, and thus remember how the exact same line of argument in the late 1800s led to the apostasy and liberalism that vitiated the professing church through the 1900s, no matter how loudly and forcefully we are urged that "this time, it's different!"

We also remember that some of the first defectors maintained some core Christian beliefs that they liked, without the other equally-Biblical beliefs that they didn't — for awhile. But then their disciples applied their own premises more considerably, with an inevitable jettisoning of more and more core belief, until the core was pretty much gone.

So we decline the invitation to hop on the latest float in the parade, knowing (remembering!) that the ephemeral roses which make floats so pretty today won’t smell so sweet tomorrow.

Much as I agree with myself, my favorite comment still is the first, from a commenter named pduggie:

Yep, I have a sin nature because of something some guy did in a story.

UPDATE: Oh, dear. I should have predicted this. Don't miss the "Doubt as heroic" meme in the first meta linked, above.

Bible knowledge test

Or supposedly it is, anyway: from the BBC.

Should I think it significant that, actually, at least two of the questions are not "Bible knowledge" questions, but are "knowledge of literature that makes reference to the Bible" questions?

I missed one of those, ending up with 9/10.

Temporary free access to ESV Study Bible online

People who purchase the ESV Study Bible can access the whole Bible and notes (and other features) online.

From March 2-31, 2009, you can see the notes too, even if you haven't purchased the study Bible yet.

Check it out. There's no obligation to buy.

Science, the Bible, and Presuppositions: a parable

A man once went into a room, in which he found a thin layer of dust and a jumble of furniture.

He moved all of the furniture exactly where he wanted it, then sat down and wrote a note. The note read:

I am the owner of this room. Over the space of one hour, I moved all of the furniture into the current arrangement.

He taped the note on the door into the room. Then he left.

Days later, a group of men came by and noticed the room. Glancing briefly at the note and shrugging, they walked into the room.

The men immediately gasped at the beautiful and complex arrangement of the furniture. They sat down and began making notes.

Another man walked by, paused at the door, read the note carefully, recognized the signature, and entered the room.

"What's going on?" he asked.

Eagerly the men responded, "We've been studying this room, and it's absolutely fascinating! Look at how intricately this furniture arranged itself! Look at the drag-lines! In a stationary room, we've calculated that movement of this sort had to have taken billions of years! Maybe kazillions!"

Puzzled, the man replied, "But the note on the door says the room's owner came in and arranged it. It only took him about an hour."

The men looked at the intruder with pity. "Owner?" they asked. "Do you see an 'owner' in here? Besides, if there were an owner, why would he deceive us all by this evidence, that clearly took billions of years to come into the current arrangement?"

"Huh?" the visitor returned. "How is it deception? Didn't you see the note? How is it deception when he tells you exactly what he did, and you just ignore it?"

Sadly, with an expression of infinite, condescending pity, the men say,

"Ah. You're not being scientific."



UPDATE: now, this is interesting. I've had this idea for some time, wrote it a bit back, and published it on the given date. Now today (2/13/09) I read for the first time this essay, dated January 30, 2009. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, does an excellent job of developing the same point along similar lines. Check it out.

Bible reading progress report 1/19/09

Some poor soul asked me to give periodic reports on how my Bible reading plan (see also here) is working. Praise God, so far it's working very well, suiting me very nicely.

What I'm doing is reading three consecutive chapters a day at minimum, plus the day's chapter of Proverbs (i.e. today I read chapter 19, tomorrow should be chapter 20, and so forth).

Today I finished Exodus, which I guess means I've averaged 4.7368421052631578947368421052632 chapters a day (plus Proverbs). I've been able to do it fine so far. Reading was only rough for a few days around my daughter's wedding last week.

But I'm much preferring it over last year's M'Cheyne schedule, which I've done many times. Instead of reading in four places, I'm following a narrative, and getting a lot more out of it. I'm thinking of retooling the way I do Proverbs, though... but not sure how to. It's a funny thing, but my familiarity with Proverbs in part is working against me.

How are you doing with your plans?

More about Bible reading

I started making a comment on this meta under my post at Pyro. Then I realized it was getting so long, it might warrant a post of its own. And so....

A couple of things:

Some of the comments actually do seem to go in the direction of, "__ chapters?? That's nothing! A real Christian would read at least __ chapters!"

I don't for a minute think that's the intent, but here are a few clarifiers:

First, any number can be rubbished and upped by some factor.

Second, some commenters seem to think I'm setting a minimum. But if you read the whole post, you'll note I'm not sticking to that minimum, myself. It's just a minimum... to get through the Bible in a year.

Third, I'm not suggesting that's all the Bible-reading I'll do! Hel-lo, it's a minimum!

Fourth, some of the comments come from the opposite direction of my own thinking. They seem to feel I'm taking huge-Bible-readers and telling them to slow down.

By contrast, I'm looking at a professing-church-full of undisciplined Bible readers, many of whom have NO plan, TOO many of whom have never actually read the whole Bible through even once.

Many of them would find M'Cheyne overwhelming, and would quit after the first busy day. Any honest person would have to admit, it's a bear to catch up on M'Cheyne! To them, I'm saying, "Read at this rate, and you'd get through the Bible in a year."

Fifth and finally, I'm not sure the goal is to see how fast you can blaze through the Bible. Is it? I don't doubt that, if you can read quickly and attentively, you will see certain themes and developments more like the writers meant you to. But you'll miss a lot, too. You do know the phrase "Whirlwind tour," right? And the pluses and minuses of such an approach?

So let's keep in mind a few minimums:

1. The only really bad Bible reading plan is to plan not to read it. Bad plan. Bad plan!
2. Second-worst is no plan at all.
3. The plan you pick should be both doable and challenging. A verse a day is just silly. A book a day is probably too much... well, unless it's Jude, 3 John or Obadiah.
4. If your last-year's plan was quick, then maybe do a slower one this year. If you were reading 4-7+ chapters from various books, consider mine of 3-minimum through mainly single books, for this year. (That's why I'm doing what I'm doing, BTW; I've probably read through the Bible dozens of times on various plans over the last 35+ years.)
5. The most important thing is to do it. I just don't see the value in picking a marvelous plan I'll never do. Pick a doable/challenging plan, and do it, by God's grace.

There.

Next year's Bible reading plan

I've done many different Bible Reading plans over the years. The worst and least successful were the no-plan plans.

Last year, for instance, I wanted to allow more time actually to study. So I purposed just to read, thoughtfully— no particular pace or plan. It was a miserable failure. Without a plan, I wandered and meandered and didn't really get anything done.

Now, I've done the M'Cheyne plan many times, and it certainly does march one right through the Bible. I did it this year, using Carson's For the Love of God as guide. Didn't love it, frankly, much as I love Carson. But he's no Spurgeon! (That's actually both a criticism and a compliment.)

However, much of a blessing as Spurgeon is, it's no reading plan at all.

What to do in 2009, if the Lord spares me?

So look: the Bible has 1,189 chapters. In a 365-day year, that's... mm, let's see... carry the 5... 3.2575342465753424657534246575342 chapters a day. I'm thinking of just reading it through, maybe concentrating on a topic such as Kingdom, or things relating to the CT/dispensationalism issue.

What have you done, hated, loved, rejected, adopted? Why?

What's your plan for 2009, should you live to see it?