x ih VN OSE TATA DI AATEXIDY PaO CORAL DSK ‘ ah OAT BAY ONThe Apostles' Creed T believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit born of the Virgin Mary. suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified. died, and was buried He descended into hell On the third day He rose again from the dead He ascended into heaven and sits ot the right hand of God the Father Almighty from there He shall come to judge the living and the decd I believe in the Holy Spirit the Holy Christian Church the communion of saints the forgiveness of sins the resurrection of the body. ond the life everlasting Amen,Chapter Two: Getting to Know Me: “Undemonizing” Myself: A Theology of Forgiveness of Others, Self-Forgiveness, & ReconciliationCHAPTER TWO ""Theonomic ethics does not maintain that Old Testament Law stated "until explicitly abrogated" (76) "But this entails a tremendous misreading of Paul, as though he were calling us to renounce life and involvement in things” on the earth” (c.f. Col. 3.18-4.1) "It was continuous, detailed study of Scripture-exegesis which drove me to theonomic conclusion" says the author. "{The dispensati lists] claim that none of the Mosaic regulations or precepts are as such universals, obligatory, but were binding only on Old Testament Israel. [They say] Christians today are under the regulations and precepts only ‘of the Adamic covenant, the Noahic covenant, and the New Testament" (93) "[To them] the law of God and the law of Moses are two different things" (93) "Christians have the mind of the Spirit, who leads and enables them to ‘fulfill the ordinances of the law’ (Rom. 8.4) (112). "The law which distinguishes Gentiles from Jews was what we call today the ‘ceremonial Jaw' (i.e. purification rites and vows (p.113)). "It is not at all the Mosaic administration of the covenant that theonomists promote today" (119) rather than moral regulations and precepts which were revealed by Moses (119). "Moral requirements, then, should be clearly distinguished from their literary formulation (codes, precepts, etc.) (119). The moral law as derived from the Mosaic covenant applies to all "[emphasis added] (126). He discusses the fact the dispensationalists think only the Noahic covenant applies to Christians today, and refutes it rather soundly. (133)."In response to the Pharisees, Christ specifically declared that the kingdom does not come visibly and gloriously (as the dispensational construction would have it) )160). "Post millennialism expects the gradual, developmental expansion of the Kingdom of Christ in time and on earth" (141) "It must be understood that reconstructionists believe that evangelism is an absolute pre- condition to worldwide postmillennialism, theocratic success. House & Ice know this though they seek to obscure it and repress it" (194) "An objection that House & Ice bring against our confidence in the success of the Great Commission is that Christians are to be “called out from’ the world (c.f. Rev. 7.9, Acts 15. 19) [They say] so Christ is calling out of the nations a people for his own name, the body of Christ" (195) [They say] God's intent for this age is to "take out" from among the nations a people for His name, not to convert the nations.." (195). Bahnsen says "Actually the ‘called out’ idea is more of an ethical designation then prophetic pronouncement. It tells us from whence we have come (a fallen world) not how many we shall be (i. “a little flock") He says House & Iee “restrict the focus and effect of redemption as discussed in the book by Gary Demar and Peter Licthart The Reduction of Christianity (196). "House & Ice maintain that the words of the Great Commission ‘refer exclusively to evangelism and soteriological salvation” (196) by which they mean the salvation of individuals. In regards to Mark 16.15 and Lk 24.46-47 they claim "there is no language or support [for] the notion of Christianizing the world” (196) .{{[[[With regard to the Great Commission "the controversy is over the scope of what Christ has commanded." }}J]]Ina footnote the authors’ of House Divided quote Ockenga in his introduction to Carl Henry's "The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism "(p.14) as saying "A Christian world-and-life view embracing world and life view questions, societal needs, personal education ought to rise out of Matt 28:18-20 as much as evangelism does. Culture depends on such a view and fundamentalism is prodigally dissipating the Christian culture accretion of centuries , a serious sin. A sorry answer lies in the abandonment of social fields to the secularist” (197) “AIP here is used in the distributive sense: It speaks of every form of authority as being, at His command whether in heaven or on earth. He has not just the authority of spiritual & moral persuasion among individuals and in the interpersonal realm, to which House & Ice limit it in current practice, He also has authority in the ecclesiastical and familial, as ‘well as in realms such as the societal, political, economical, and so forth (197). He quotes anti-reconstruction Presbyterian theologian O. Palmer Robertson as agreeing with the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26-28. Bahnsen goes on to say "But how are we to understand the nature of this redemption which has as its scope this “world?” “A close consideration of the passages disallows the notion that what is in view is a general tendering of an offer of salvation or the mere provision of the resources, either of which awaits the response of the individual. The terms employed are too potent to allow such conceptions” 204), The F WordDay 11, | accept another assignment. It’s not that I personally have never used a four letter word in moment of anger, but that the use of profanity is so common in normal conversation in some places to the point of offensiveness for those who are offended. The use of profanity is on school property is prohibited by district rules. Here is an example of a good use of the control of language to control. Whenever I am in the class I make an effort to prohibit it, and tell them why as well. It is offensive and it is mundane. [ am not sure why it is so common, but wonder whether the rule is not enforced by some schools or personnel, or in some cases is perpetuated by some of them Some of the Above Needs qualification. The critics of Schuller need to examine themselves in terms of fruits of the Spirit. Are they exhibiting any, themselves? Orthodoxy should lead to orthopraxy. Now I see a message coming from Schuller ministries which promotes the Spirit of Christian capitalism and positive thinking, among a number of things. I don't have the space nor have I taken the time to carefully study the criticism of the Reformed Church's Crystal Cathedral. It is definitely in a class of its own, hopefully for the better. I've supported them financially, and have found their message to be edifying to me, even if it's not an conventional confession of faith. That's the danger of not only delivering the message to a worldwide audience which does not necessarily know that much about "orthodoxy" but also having a live guest on a weekly basis. Schuller takes a chance in bringing in guests from all over the world and different realms of life with the hope that they will be a witness to the Christian faith. In allowing them to be a witness followed bysermon which allows the ordained minister to bring the message back to a shape that ‘most resembles the orthodox position, there is the combination of spontaneous movement of the Holy Spirit (hopefully) but also the opportunity to correct anything opposing that (ifand when it occurs) with a sermon. I suppose the Hour of Power also has the capability to edit parts which are potentially unorthodox or offensive as well, but I don't get the sense that such is necessary most of the time. Rap Music Is an example of a legitimated mode of expression of anger. Although it may cause some trouble if played too loud, it is a free mode of speech. I'm sitting at this predominantly African-American high school where I accepted an assignment, and they ask me to cover a band class for part of a conference period. I walk over to the auditorium where they practice and along the way hear the "f" word (which I address, telling the student it is inappropriate and a violation of school rules to use such language ) bits and pieces of sexually explicit conversation (which I also attempt to address telling the student it is inappropriate, to put it mildly) and arrive at the auditorium. I find the band teacher, Roberts, and he says "Thanks for covering, I'll be back in a few minutes.” As it tums out, while Robert's band class simply sat there, there was a dance class practicing on the auditorium stage, directed by their own teacher. There's not much for me to do so pull out some of the reading material I have with me and while the dance class is practicing I keep one eye on the class I'm supposed to be supervising, and another eye on the stuff I am reading, while occasionally glancing at the dance practice, and hearing the music. Occasionally, I have witnessed same-sex touching in some of the schools I have