It is well to be able, without any “if” or “but,” to say of the Lord Jesus—“Thou whom my soul loveth.” Many can only say of Jesus that they hope they love him; they trust they love him; but only a poor and shallow experience will be content to stay here. No one ought to give any rest to his spirit till he feels quite sure about a matter of such vital importance. We ought not to be satisfied with a superficial hope that Jesus loves us, and with a bare trust that we love him. The old saints did not generally speak with “buts,” and “ifs,” and “hopes,” and “trusts,” but they spoke positively and plainly. “I know whom I have believed,” saith Paul. “I know that my Redeemer liveth,” saith Job. Get positive knowledge of your love of Jesus, and be not satisfied till you can speak of your interest in him as a reality, which you have made sure by having received the witness of the Holy Spirit, and his seal upon your soul by faith.

True love to Christ is in every case the Holy Spirit’s work, and must be wrought in the heart by him. He is the efficient cause of it; but the logical reason why we love Jesus lies in himself. Why do we love Jesus? Because he first loved us. Why do we love Jesus? Because he “gave himself for us.” We have life through his death; we have peace through his blood. Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor. Why do we love Jesus? Because of the excellency of his person. We are filled with a sense of his beauty! an admiration of his charms! a consciousness of his infinite perfection! His greatness, goodness, and loveliness, in one resplendent ray, combine to enchant the soul till it is so ravished that it exclaims, “Yea, he is altogether lovely.” Blessed love this—a love which binds the heart with chains more soft than silk, and yet more firm than adamant!  - C. H. Spurgeon

Summary: Boldly stating that historians can construct a sketch of Jesus that makes sense both historically and subsequently serves as the beginning point of Christian theology, N.T. Wright shapes this talk around 7 points of discussion about Jesus. Wight asserts that Jesus claimed to be a prophet and a messiah, was a teacher of subversive wisdom, and attempted to reconstitute Israel around himself believing that his death would usher in the kingdom of God. From these discussion points and others taken up in the talk, Wright makes a case that those who come to the historical sources about Jesus in a responsible manner will find a clear trajectory between the Jesus of the gospels and the theology of the apostle Paul.

Source Link

Pugin Window, originally uploaded by Clive Jones 190.

I have learned the wondrous secret
Of abiding in the Lord;
I have tasted life's pure fountain,
I am drinking of His word;
I have found the strength and sweetness
Of abiding 'neath the blood;
I have lost myself in Jesus,
I am sinking into God.

I'm abiding in the Lord
And confiding in His word;
I am hiding in the bosom of His love.
Yes, abiding in the Lord
And confiding in His word,
I am hiding in the bosom of His love.

I am crucified with Jesus,
And He lives and dwells with me;
I have ceased from all my struggling,
'Tis no longer I, but He.
All my will is yielding to Him,
And His Spirit reigns within;
And His precious blood each moment
Keeps me cleansed and free from sin.

All my sicknesses I bring Him,
And He bears them all away;
All my fears and griefs I tell Him,
All my cares from day to day,
All my strength I draw from Jesus,
By His breath I live and move;
E'en His very mind He gives me,
And His faith, and life, and love.

For my words I take His wisdom,
For my works His Spirit's power;
For my ways His ceaseless presence
Guards and guides me every hour.
Of my heart, He is the portion,
Of my joy the boundless spring;
Savior, Sanctifier, Healer,
Glorious Lord, and coming King.

Argument from Design

The argument starts with the major premise that where there is design, there must be a designer. The minor premise is the existence of design throughout the universe. The conclusion is that there must be a universal designer.

Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer? Because everyone admits this principle in practice. For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found "S.O.S." written in the sand on the beach. You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message. If you found a stone hut on the island with windows, doors, and a fireplace, you would not think a hurricane had piled up the stones that way by chance. You immediately infer a designer when you see design.

When the first moon rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, two U.S. scientists stood watching it, side by side. One was a believer, the other an unbeliever. The believer said, "Isn't it wonderful that our rocket is going to hit the moon by chance?" The unbeliever objected, "What do you mean, chance? We put millions of manhours of design into that rocket." "Oh," said the believer, "you don't think chance is a good explanation for the rocket? Then why do you think it's a good explanation for the universe? There's much more design in a universe than in a rocket. We can design a rocket, but we couldn't design a whole universe. I wonder who can?" Later that day the two were strolling down a street and passed an antique store. The atheist admired a picture in the window and asked, "I wonder who painted that picture?" "No one," joked the believer; "it just happened by chance."

Is it possible that design happens by chance without a designer? There is perhaps one chance in a trillion that "S.O.S." could be written in the sand by the wind. But who would use a one-in-a-trillion explanation? Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It's called God.

There is one especially strong version of the argument from design that hits close to home because it's about the design of the very thing we use to think about design: our brains. The human brain is the most complex piece of design in the known universe. In many ways it is like a computer. Now just suppose there were a computer that was programmed only by chance. For instance, suppose you were in a plane and the public-address system announced that there was no pilot, but the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a random fall of hailstones on its keyboard or by a baseball player in spiked shoes dancing on computer cards. How much confidence would you have in that plane? But if our brain computer has no cosmic intelligence behind the heredity and environment that program it, why should we trust it when it tells us about anything, even about the brain?

Another specially strong aspect of the design argument is the so-called anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been specially designed from the beginning for human life to evolve. If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions; only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is something like one in a trillion trillion. Add together each of the chances and you have something far more unbelievable than a million monkeys writing Hamlet.

There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

But doesn't evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

How much does this argument prove? Not all that the Christian means by God, of course—no argument can do that. But it proves a pretty thick slice of God: some designing intelligence great enough to account for all the design in the universe and the human mind. If that's not God, what is it? Steven Spielberg?

O Wondrous Sight! O Vision Fair

1. O wondrous sight! O vision fair
of glory that the church shall share,
which Christ upon the mountain shows,
where brighter than the sun he glows!

2. From age to age the tale declares
how with the three disciples there
where Moses and Elijah meet,
the Lord holds converse high and sweet.

3. The law and prophets there have place,
two chosen witnesses of grace;
the Father's voice from out the cloud
proclaims his only Son aloud.

4. With shining face and bright array,
Christ deigns to manifest that day
what glory shall be theirs above
who joy in God with perfect love.

5. And faithful hearts are raised on high
by this great vision's mystery;
for which in joyful strains we raise
the voice of prayer, the hymn of praise.

Text: Sarum Breviary; trans. by John Mason Neale
Music: William Knapp; harm. from Hymns Ancient and Modern
Tune: WAREHAM, Meter: LM

]]> http://fatherdalton.com/2010/08/06/friday-devotional-transfiguration-of-our-lord/feed/ http://fatherdalton.com/2010/08/04/hell-isnt-the-god-of-christianity-an-angry-judge-a-response-by-timothy-keller/ http://fatherdalton.com/2010/08/04/hell-isnt-the-god-of-christianity-an-angry-judge-a-response-by-timothy-keller/#comments Wed, 04 Aug 2010 05:15:37 +0000 FrDalton http://fatherdalton.com/?p=1624 I'm re-posting this for a friend of mine after a brief discussion on Hell.   I hope you'll spend 1/2 hour and listen to it.   The video at the Google Headquarters is very good also.

This is an interesting message about the Biblical doctrine of Hell, it's about 35 minutes long.

This talk is by Timothy Keller in his Reason for God Series of Talks

click here for source page at Redeemer Church

The Reason for God by Timothy Keller is in some ways an updated, contemporary “Mere Christianity”. Keller, like C. S. Lewis is dealing with some common objections to the idea of God and then also presenting a positive argument for basic Christian belief. I think he does an excellent job and I applaud him. He was also applauded at Google Headquarters just one year ago yesterday, as he presented some ideas from his book to the Google Staff. The presentation is offered here via YouTube. Seems like the turnout for Keller's talk brought an unusually large crowd of Google employees compared to the many presentations by other visiting authors. I highly recommend the book, but you might also want to watch this video presentation, followed up by interesting questions from Google folks. - Richard Dalton

Amazon Link to Book

P1180484, originally uploaded by richarddalton14.

We've had a request for more pictures of Ariel, our first grandchild, born 7/9/10. Please check out the slide show by clicking on the link below.

Click Here to See A Beautiful Baby

This is the March 31, 2010 debate  between two prominent New Testament scholars: Dr. Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Bart Ehrman (specific debate info and bios here) on the topic: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus? The format revolves around 7 critical questions on the topic, with each participant providing their prepared answers.

Source Link

It cannot be said that we were arrested for causing a disturbance, because we did not approach anyone, rather everyone with whom we spoke first approached us. It cannot be said that we were harassing anyone, because the moment anyone said "stop talking to me", we would stop talking to them. And it cannot be said that we were spreading hate speech, because we said virtually nothing about Islam at all. On the contrary, we repeatedly affirmed our love for all Muslims. Whenever I was asked "Why would you love me?" I said "Because Jesus loves you, and he told me to love you."

No hating, no disturbing, no harassing… It remains only to be concluded that we were arrested simply for being Christian Preachers at the Arab Festival in Dearborn.

This is when some young boys started talking to me

David's in the blue shirt, Paul has the number 8 on his back, and I'm in the red shirt in the middle