richard's notions.

The presuppositional apologetic is highly effective. In fact, it is the only way we can make any sense of the world, and the arguments for God's existence (and, ironically, the arguments against His existence).

However, meatheads applying presuppositional apologetics are not effective. They do nothing by drive people away from the faith, and think that's a good thing.

I just read on a messageboard, a young man (read thunder puppy) arguing with an atheist. The T.P. is a christian, and a seminarian of Westminster west. He has a lot of head knowledge, and knows that everyone has the knowledge of God written on their heart. He knows the atheist he is talking to is doing everything he can to deny God, and the honor He is due. These things are all true, and knowledge of them ought to be taken advantage of in the argument. But this guy is so harsh, so abrasive in his method, that the atheist is only more confirmed in his dislike of Christianity.

Now, it's true that the atheist may go this way regardless, but it's a shame when it's our fault they do it, and not God's. It's one thing if God hardens their heart, and something else entirely if we harden their heart.

And the really sad part is that the young christian man is happy with himself and his behavior, and thinks he has done well. "The atheists further hardening, is, of course, just because he doesn't like God's truth... he just isn't one of the elect", he says to himself. And in so doing, denies any responsibility for his neighbor's rejection of the faith.

All too often we reformed think that since God is sovereign, we don't have anything to do with other people's salvation. And this is a lie, planted by the devil himself.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 08:28.

whew!

posted by Richard Okimoto at 17:40.

What in the world?! Right now... my blog is someone else's. I hope this post fixes it!

posted by Richard Okimoto at 17:39.

I just learned some exciting news (for me anyhow...)

Sunday, November 9, Doug Wilson is preaching at our church.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 18:18.

Lucy Zoe's latest post reminds of the time a radio host and a caller were celebrating the fact that their kids were going back to school. Ugh.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 09:20.

Speaking of Cheers, you remember Norm Peterson? He was the big guy that was always drinking beer.

Well, I've spoken to 'ol Norm. George Wendt. He called my apartment one time, when I was in college.

My roomate was a theater major, and was wanted to get into the business. His father went to school with George Wendt, and was also an admiral in the Navy. His high rank and slight connection to Mr. Wendt enabled my roommate's father to contact him. He asked him to give my roommate some advice on how to break in. So he called, and I happened to answer the phone.

At the time I had no idea who George Wendt was. I knew Norm, sure. But not George. He asked to speak to my roommate. Normally I'd have just said, "sure, hang on" and that would be the end of it. But for some reason - I don't know why - this time I asked who was calling. And I heard George... something or another. I couldn't understand the last name.
"I'm sorry?", I said, asking him to repeat his name.
"George Wendt."
"George When?
"George Wendt."
"Wind?"
"Wendt."

This last response from him had a touch of frustration in it. Now, I was ready to figure this guys name out, but at this point, my roommate came walking into the room, looking at me funny. With my buddy all concerned like that I decided against it. I said to George, "um.. just a second", and gave the phone to my roommate, who dissappeared into his room for half an hour or so.

Afterwards he explained to me who it was, and then I was able to place the voice with the face.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 09:32.

via This Classical Life, aka The Stewarts:



Read more about my type here. Not all of it is accurate for me, I don't think. But it's still interesting. Plus, it's written by a guy named.... Joe Butt.

And here's something fun...

Famous ISTJs:

Thomas (Christ's disciple)

U.S. Presidents:
George Washington
Andrew Johnson
Benjamin Harrison
Herbert Hoover
George H. W. Bush

Paul Coverdale (U.S. Senator, R-GA)
Jackie Joyner-Kersee (U.S. Olympic athlete)
Evander Holyfield, heavyweight boxing champion
Jack Webb (Joe Friday)

Fictional ISTJs:
Mr. Martin (hero of James Thurber's Sitting in the Catbird Seat)
Eeyore (Winnie the Pooh)
Fred Mertz (I Love Lucy)
Puddleglum, the marshwiggle (Chronicles of Narnia)
Cliff (Cheers)


posted by Richard Okimoto at 09:23.

Comparisons
G.K. Chesterton

If I set the sun beside the moon,
And if I set the land beside the sea,
And if I set the town beside the country,
And if I set the man beside the woman,
I suppose some fool would talk about one being better.


posted by Richard Okimoto at 15:00.

My membership in the covenant is my objectively knowable relation to God. That is what our children have, and so I call it covenant membership. There is no point at which they do not have this relationship, and so I deny that there is a transition from outside the covenant to inside it. After a child's baptism, this relationship is objectively knowable because of his baptism. Before his baptism, this relationship is no less objectively knowable because of who the child's parents are. It is like human parent-child relationships: right now, the child inside my wife's womb is objectively known to be a Colvin because of who his parents are; later, he will be born and we will name him. His membership in the Colvin family will then be objectively knowable because of his birth certificate.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 12:08.

A Snip:
"In the context of developing the case for paedocommunion, I think all of this is very significant. As long as we are sitting in our "cone of silence," neither seeing nor being seen, it is easy to fail to identify (and identify with) the body of Christ around us. But open your eyes as you eat. The Lord's Supper is the "family meal" of the body of Christ. As you look around and see the family members, you will see people whom you sometimes struggle with - these are your fellow members of Christ's body. And you will see baptized children - these too are your fellow members of Christ's body. And I dare say that seeing these faces, week after week (God grant that we may once again commune weekly!), you will have an increasingly difficult time eating the family meal in front of them while they go without. The Supper is an affirmation of the unity of the body, of the communal participation of the saints together in Christ, and these members are being barred. I hope that we are not too numb to make the connection."

Read it all.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 14:15.

Answers In Genesis, in my opinion, is the very best biblical creationist website. While they deal primarily with science, what sets them a part from other creationist resources is that they know why they can deal with science.

Here's an example of what I mean, from an article recently posted. In response to an atheist's comment that "belief in God is irrational", Dr. Jonathan Sarfati replies,

This presupposes that it is irrational to believe anything without proof. However, according to the fundamentals of basic logic, all belief systems start with axioms, which by definition are accepted to be true without proof. This applies to atheism, science, mathematics, and propositional logic itself. And there are also many other propositions in everyday life that people believe without mathematically rigorous proof, e.g. that the sun will rise tomorrow, that a mother loves her child, etc. Therefore it is perfectly logical for Answers in Genesis to use the propositions of Scripture as axioms. This is our bottom line�although the above arguments for God�s existence can be helpful, we believe that the Scriptures are their own authority. We do not ultimately try to prove the Bible with science, for that would place science in authority. See Creation: �Where�s the Proof?�

The difference between the Christian�s axioms and the atheist�s is that ours are self-consistent, make good sense of the evidence, and are consistent with the arguments proposed above. Conversely, the atheist�s axioms are ultimately self-refuting�perhaps the greatest form of irrationality is to believe in rationality when that rationality was supposedly ultimately produced by non-rational random combinations of chemicals. The great English writer and converted atheist, C.S. Lewis, pointed this out�see quote.

Shortly followed with,

In conclusion, there are two main worldviews that are diametrically opposed: atheism and Christian theism. Evolution and creation science are really different interpretations of the same data because of the different axioms (and therefore biases) of these rival worldviews. In reality, the leading evolutionary propagandists chide creationists not for believing in different facts, but for not following their self-serving rules, i.e. materialism�see The Rules of the Game. It is vitally important to realize that neither side is neutral, and that both sides interpret the data according to their underlying presuppositions. Similarly, Christians should not meekly play by rules made up by atheists for debating the question: �Does God Exist?�

posted by Richard Okimoto at 09:24.

Mother Kirk highlights the importance of teaching and preaching as the center of pastoral ministry. That is hardly surprising, since this book comes from a classical Calvinist. Some Calvinists, however, leave the impression that the church would function much more smoothly if it were not for the people. Doug Wilson is not that sort of Calvinist. He understands that the church is people, and that people can be governed and led only by other people. He realizes that the ministry of the Word must be incarnated in the life of the pastor. He has observed that the biblial qualifications for elders focus on character. He knows there are no paper pastors.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about this book, and certainly one of the most impressive things about Doug Wilson's own very impressive ministry, is his realization that Jesus is the Head and Lord of His Church. Every Christian would agree, but few have grasped as profoundly as Wilson the flip side of this confession: If Jesus is the Head of His Church, that means I'm not and you're not. And that means that there is no place in the church's leaedership for the domineering benefactor, the manipulative wheeler-dealer, the prima donna, the agenda-monger. There is room only for those willing to become servants to all, those willing to lay down their lives for (sometimes intractable) sheep, for those willing to bear the slave yoke of Christ with humility, grace and gladness. Only such leaders will bring genuine reformation, because only such leaders labor in faith, confessing that the future of Mother Kirk is in the Lord's hands and not their own.

- Peter Leithart, in his foreword to Douglas Wilson's book, Mother Kirk

And I expect this quote to be tossed about cyberspace as much as this one

posted by Richard Okimoto at 16:53.

Yesterday, my two girls became little sickies. Snot running all over the place, and plenty of grumps.

So I wasn't too surprised when multiple screams came bellowing out of their bedroom last night. Megan took care of Ashley and I handled Geneva. Ashley, so far as I remember (and I cannot be relied upon for this information...), ate some, and Geneva just didn't want to be in her bed. Well, Ashley was put back, and I settled Geneva back into her bed.

I returned to my own bed, and saw my alarm clock as I crawled in. "It's only twelve" I said excitedly. Megan replied, "It's nice, isn't it?", and off to sleep we went.

How foolish of us.

It wasn't a half hour later before more cries came from their room, and Megan and I alternated in giving care for Ashley and Geneva. Children were in their own beds, children were in our bed. Parents were in their own bed, parents were in children's beds. It was crazy. Ashley wouldn't be satisfied, so we let her cry some, but Geneva couldn't get to sleep with Ashley crying, so she stayed with us for a time. Megan couldn't sleep with Geneva squirming all around (and calling for water, and she tossed her full sippy onto mom's head), so Geneva went back to her bed, and Ashley came out with Dad, who tried to sing to her and carry her around the house to satisfy her. Nothing would do. Geneva had fallen fast asleep at this point, so I was able to put Ashley back in her crib. Geneva, once asleep, sleeps like a rock. I went back to bed. Screams emitted from their room for some time. Megan requested to get Ashley. I ask what she's going to do, and she replies "Magic". Moments later, the crying ceases. Ashley comes to bed with Mom, and appears to be happy. She had a bit to eat and remains with us the duration of the night. Or morning, I should say. It was 3:30 before the madness had stopped.

When I left for work at six, they were both as peaceful as can be. You never would have imagined they kept their parents up half the night.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 13:49.

When Geneva's in the proper mood, she gives the best hugs in all the world.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 12:31.

You know those abortion protest signs that have pictures of dismembered babies, with slogans such as "Aboriton is Homicide" and "Choice is murder" and such? If not, well, I'm not sure I'm comfortable posting a link.

Which is really what this post is about. What do ya'll think about that? Do you think it is appropriate to show those signs on the streets? Monday evening, on my way home from work, I drove through an intersection that had about a dozen or so of them scattered throughout, with individuals passing out a a short pamphlet. I took one. Then, yesterday, I went through another intersection, this time in Roanoke, that had the signs. I guess they're making their way westward.

I can definitely see the good in showing these signs, as disturbing as they are. It is precisely because they are so disturbing that they are so powerful. In a country that says there is nothing wrong with an underage girl walking down the street and getting an abortion in a state subsidized facility, all without her parents even knowing, I don't see why it should be a problem to have pictures of what happens. If what is in the womb - the thing that is getting chopped up - is really just a mass of tissue, and not a living person, the what's the big deal with showing pictures of it? I mean, we see dead animals on the side of the road all the time, and that was even a living creature. Would they be upset with pictures of a tumor?

The only problem that I have with those signs, and the reason that I am undecided on whether or not they ought to be used, is my children. I don't want my girls to see those images. Not yet, at any rate. By God's grace, they, like me, will understand the horrors of abortion before they are ever exposed to those pictures.

So... Thoughts?

posted by Richard Okimoto at 10:02.

Whether it's cool, artsy folks or smart, theology types, or even a combination of the two, I'm often wanting to be like someone else.

How lame.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 11:12.

Worth reposting:

Peter Leithart's Exhortation, Sunday, September 14

Jesus knew that His teaching differed from the teaching of others in Israel and especially from the Pharisees, and His warnings at the end of the sermon show that He wanted to distinguish His teaching from others. He gives a quick succession of �cartoons� that describe the dangers of false teachers. He says that the Pharisees are like blind men who are trying to lead other blind men, and points out that when the blind lead the blind, all of them eventually topple over into the ditch. He warns that disciples become like their teachers; following Pharisees means becoming a Pharisee, and who wants that?

One sort of blindness that Jesus condemns is the kind that comes from focusing on the small errors of others while ignoring your own large and blatant errors and sins. He describes a man with a tree trunk in his eye offering to remove a small speck of dust from his brother�s eye. The picture is absurd, and the significance is deepened when we look at it in larger biblical perspective. Throughout Scripture, eyes are organs of judgment. From the first chapter of Genesis, God sees and evaluates the world He makes; He �sees� and pronounces it good. The man with the speck in his eye has his judgment impaired, but not nearly so much as the man with the tree trunk in his eye.

Jesus is not saying that passing judgment is wrong. In fact, we are redeemed, Paul tells us, so that our eyes may be opened and we can share in God�s evaluations and judgments. It is a great privilege to be able to discern and pass judgment. Our brothers and sisters may indeed have specks in their eyes, which cloud their judgments, and it is an act of Christian love to help remove the speck. But Jesus warns that we need to take heed to ourselves first. Before we have offer our services as ophthalmologists, we should check our own qualifications, because our eyesight may be faulty. Paul made this very same point when he encouraged the Galatians: �if a man is caught in a trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted.�

We in Moscow especially need to take Jesus� warning to heart. We are frequently critical of other Christians for their goofiness and their trashiness. We condemn Christian kitsch and Jesus junk and the me-tooism that characterizes evangelicalism. Making these kinds of judgments is not wrong. These are genuine errors and flaws, and serious ones, in the contemporary church, and they are obstacles to discernment.

But we are qualified for this only insofar as we are regularly removing the logs from our own eyes, and making sure that our judgment is not impaired by some massive sin. One of the great dangers is that an attitude of pride and self-congratulation can come into this, even if we state our criticisms with a degree of humility. We don�t profess to be perfect, but at least we don�t sing praise songs. We may not have arrived, but at least we don�t like Thomas Kincaid. We may not have it all together, but at least we don�t buy cheesy Bibles. At least we�re superior to our brothers in THOSE respects. At least we are not like that pathetic Evangelical in the corner.

That kind of smug self-satisfaction would be a log, a monstrous beam in our eye, and as long as it�s there we have no business trying to perform cataract surgery on our brothers. Remove the log, and THEN help your brother with his speck. For remember the words of Jesus: �by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you in return.�

via A Minor

posted by Richard Okimoto at 10:01.

When we first moved into our house, there was a plant growing in various places around the yard. I didn't recognize it at the time, and thought it may be something left over from a garden, or at least something pretty, so I let them grow to find out. I realized recently that it's not something I want around.

So today, after I cut the grass, I decided to cut them all down. I pulled out my trusty hatchet, and went to town. It was quite effective in chopping through the soft, fleshy wood. It was also quite effective in chopping through my soft, fleshy toe.

One of the plants had grown through one of the holes in a chainlink fence, and had then grown right around the metal fence. As I was hacking through it, I hit the fence. That caused the small ax to bounce off target, and wham... right onto my toe.

Now, it's not really as bad as all that. No toe hanging by a few fleshy threads. Before I took my shoe off, I didn't even think it had broken the skin. I thought it was just sore from the impact. But then I saw the blood soaking through my sock.

I'm actually quite lucky (I speak as a man). If it had been any deeper it would have certainly cut into a tendon. The one right on top of your big toe. My left foot, if you're interested. As it is I just have a gash right on my 'big toe knuckle' that I'm guessing is just under a quarter of an inch deep. Maybe 3/16 or something. I'll have to look at a ruler later.

Exciting! If it were just a little longer I could, perhaps, pull it open and have a virtual window into my foot. Fun!

posted by Richard Okimoto at 21:15.

Beard Update.

Yesterday marked four weeks. The status of the beard is about the same as last week, except longer. Each hair is actually quite a bit long. They point in everywhich direction. One might think this is good since there's all that empty space around each that needs to be filled in, but... well, I'm not sure. I'm reserving judgment until the full five weeks are grown out.

So.. one more week before the final decision.

I was looking in the rear view mirror today, and I decided if nothing else I could have some lambchops for halloween.

::insert Elvis sound::

posted by Richard Okimoto at 19:50.

I just put up a few more little photo galleries, and reorganized it so there is a main page with links to each gallery. I'll eventually add links to each gallery back to the index...

gallery index

posted by Richard Okimoto at 13:40.

So I've been pondering about the efficacy of baptism, and the covenantal status of the children of believers.

I'm convinced that children of at least one believing parent are members of the covenant by virtue of their parent's covenant status.

I'm also convinced that the Bible very clearly speaks of baptism as doing something. It seems to be saying that there is a difference in the individual before and after their baptism. And that difference, I'm inclined to believe, has to do with their place in the covenant.

But the question quickly arises, so are unbaptized children of believers in the covenant? Do they have "full" covenant status, or does some mid-level position need to be recognized? Rick Lusk has used the analogy of engagement and marriage to answer the question. He says that covenant children, before they are baptized, are like someone that is engaged, which is to say has the promise, but it is not yet established. Then, after baptism, they are 'married'. This still seems to put a second rate Christian status on those infant children.

Not too long ago I was listening to a debate between Douglas Wilson and Dan Barker. One objection Barker produced had to do with a discrepancy between John 5 and John 8. In chapter 5, Jesus says "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. " Then, in chapter 8, he says "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true". A big contradiction. Wilson goes on to explain in the fuller context of both the passages and the whole Bible, that Jesus was saying that what he says abouty Himself is, indeed, true, but it is unconfirmed. When there are two or three witnesses, the testimony is both true and confirmed.

So, I was wondering if this could apply to baptism? What I mean is, the child of believing parents who is not yet baptized is really a member of the covenant - a full member, equal in status with his parents - but is not yet confirmed or recognized publically as being a covenant member. I don't know. What do you think?

posted by Richard Okimoto at 11:39.

Tonight I get to see Andrew Peterson here in Lynchburg. I'm excited.

At one point in my history, I'd drive hundreds of miles to see Andy play, and I would see him every few months or so. The last time I saw him, though, was in December. Which means I haven't seen him since his new record was released (Love and Thunder, back in February), which means I haven't heard most of those songs live.

Which means I'm in for a treat tonight.

If you happen to be in the area and don't have plans for the night, the show is at West Lynchburg Baptist Church, and I think it's seven dollars at the door. Doors open at 6:30.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 08:00.

I've got birthdays coming up.... 10/2, 10/31 and 11/26. All my ladies!

posted by Richard Okimoto at 14:47.

Yesterday I began listening to a three part series on the book of Romans by NT Wright. Now, I know it's popular to bash the man. And I also know it's popular in smaller (but more respectable) circles to praise him. So I was pretty much as neutral as one can be. I listened to a lecture he gave on Paul, which was okay. It wasn't great, but definitely not terrible. So I was quite shocked when I discovered that this first lecture on Romans is great. I mean, it is really, really good. And it flies in the face of so many of Wright's critics, or at least many of the criticisms I've heard of Wright. Maybe I'm just being biased and putting a spin on what he said that agrees with what I believe. But even if that's the case, (which I don't think it is, although I am giving him the benefit of the doubt (as he actually requests at the beginning of the lecture)), there is quite a bit to learn from the man.

I began typing up a bit just for one quote, but I had a hard time stopping because it continued to be so good. Whenever I thought I found a good stopping point, he went on to something I wanted to share. Here's a snippet of the lecture:

This worldwide family that God promised to Abraham who are already in the present assured of forgiveness and of membership in the covenant because of Jesus' death and resurrection, this worldwide family is marked out in the present by faith alone. In order to understand justification by faith alone you have to understand it within the framework of that covenant theology of which I've already spoken. And you also have to understand it, overlapping with that, within the framework of the eschatology of which I've already spoken. Romans' first mention of justification, in chapter 2, is justification by works at the end, 'to those who by patience and well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality God will give eternal life'.

I know this is hugely problematic, and I know that in saying this without having three lectures to expand this point alone, I am giving great hostages to fortune, but if somebody after this session goes away saying 'Actually, Tom Wright believes in justification by works', please tell them that they're wrong. The problem is that so often we have taken what Paul says about present justification, which is by faith alone, and simply wave that around in a vague way as though it covers the future as well, and as though it is more or less synonymous with the word 'salvation'. People sometimes talk about salvation by faith, thinking they're summarizing what Paul is saying. No, for Paul it's justification by faith. Salvation - which is the ultimate rescue - comes ultimately at the end. And at the end, according to Romans 2, Romans 14, 2 Corinthians 5, and several other passages, God's final judgment will be on the basis of the entire life of the person concerned.

Now of course there are problems and tensions and we need to see how Paul gets from the one to the other, and we'll be tracking some of that as we go along. But the point about justification by faith in Romans 3:21-31, that crucial and wonderful and dense paragraph at the end of chapter 3, is not that God has said 'It's so difficult for people to keep the law, that instead let's make a different system and they can now just believe something instead, because that will be easier for them.' That's a stupid old caricature, which you still find in some of the literature, and which has actually found its way, in a low grade, watered down form, into the kind of enlightenment liberalism which says '----------' [at latin (I think) phrase that I'm not even going to bother trying to spell] 'God will forgive, that's His job'. Which says 'Oh well, God's not too worried what we do because all that matters is simply something going on in the heart, so that's � we're all all right, really'. And that's the kind of soggy, post-protestant liberalism that you find in a great deal of western culture currently. No, let's get sharp about this, and precise about what Paul's doctrine of justification by faith actually is.

Justification by faith looks ahead to the future judgment, the day when God will judge the world. And it says, astonishingly, that that judgment has been announced in advance when God raised Jesus from the dead. We now know what the verdict of the last day will be. And God's verdict is the same as it was when He raised Jesus, 'This is my beloved Son, with Him I am well pleased'. The question, then, is, 'how can individual men and women become part of what God did in and to and for Jesus when He raised Him from the dead, and declared that He really was His son?' As in Romans 1:4, which remains foundational for all of this. The answer is, that when the gospel is announced, when the good news about Jesus is preached, then people discover, mysteriously, that the Spirit works in their hearts and lives so that they believe it. And when they believe it, that, for Paul, is the sign already that they are part of the 'Jesus family', the Messiah's people, the faith people. Because as he says frequently, Jesus was the faithful Israelite, the faithful Messiah. The one who was faithful to the plan of God, the plan to which Israel, though called to it, had been faithless. Jesus was the one who was faithful. And our answering faith called out from us by the Spirit's work through the gospel � check out what Paul says about that in 1 Thessalonians, that "when the word of God was preached, you accepted it not as the word of man, but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers". Paul has a strong theology of the gospel word as the vehicle of the Spirit's work. And where that Word and Spirit produces faith, he says that is the sure evidence of the new life which means you are now declared to be dikaios. Righteous. Covenant members. Covenant membership is almost exactly what Paul means there by dikaios. That is how justification by faith works. And that is why Paul celebrates in Galatians and Romans and Philippians the fact that because that is the one defining characterisitic of this people of God in the Messiah, it is universal, for everybody, Jew and gentile alike. There is no distinction. All have sinned, and all, now, are to be justified by faith alone. That is, to be declared in the present, to be in the right.

As I was saying to some of you yesterday, therefore, I do � and this is perhaps the most controversial thing I shall say today, though you never know what's going to scratch people in peculiar ways � justification for Paul is not the doctrine about how you get into the people of God. It is God's declaration that you are in. If you want to know about how you get in, Paul's word for that is not 'justify' but 'call'. In Romans 8:29 following, he says 'those whom God predestined, He also called. Those whom He called, He also justified. And those whom He justified, He also glorified.' And I do think that the great tradition in which you and I both stand, in our various ways, has actually collapsed the word 'justification' into the meaning of what Paul says by 'call'. And that by doing that, we have systematically misunderstood what Paul was talking about."

Here I finally forced myself to stop. But, someone asked a question at the end of the lecture quite relevant to that last portion, which I�ll also quote�

Q: "You said that justification for Paul isn't about how you get into the people of God, it's the declaration that you're in'. That sounds fine to me. But then you said that, for Paul, 'called' is the term for how you get in. And I wonder whether, for Paul, 'dying and rising with Christ' is the term for how you get in?"

A: "Yeah. Saying 'call' is the term was putting it too sharply. I was taking it in terms of that ordo salutis find in Romans 8:29-30. But, of course, for Paul, when he says 'call', he would also want to put along with that all that you find in Romans 6 about dying and rising with Christ, and all that bewildering range of stuff you find in Galatians 3:26-29, where he says the same thing from about seven different angles in quick succession. About coming into Christ, about having faith, about being a child of Abraham. That it's all part of the same thing - joining the family. Because dying and rising with Christ is, for Paul, is inextricably bound up with baptism. And so, the call comes through the gospel, people who hear it and believe are baptized � they and I think their families � and they constitute then the community of those who are in. And the badge that shows they're in is faith. That was the main point I was making."

posted by Richard Okimoto at 09:17.

I was told this story last night by a friend. It is crazy.

There's a new Christian bookstore here in the Lynchburg area. It's kind of like a bookshop/coffee shop with a ice cream parlor, too. They have people come in and sing and stuff there.

My friend went there one night, to listen to the music. It was a Liberty student, so a lot of Liberty students came to see her. During an intermission the owner came up and invited anyone to sing karaoke. After some egging on by friends, two guys came up. One of them was a sort of heavy set guy, and he had a baseball cap on, cockeyed. On the front of this hat read, "Jesus is my homeboy". The non-homeboy, who played bass for the main act, began to sing the song Mary Did You Know. The homeboy then started repeating everything the other guy would sing in a whispy voice, and being generally veyr silly. One line in the song goes something like "did you know when you kissed your little boy you were kissing the face of God", and at that point the homeboy made a kissing sound into the mic. Not too much later he started beatboxing into the mic, just being ridiculous. At this point, the owner came up and told them to stop.

So after they are shooed off the stage, my friend overhears one girl in the audience say to her friend, "Why can't rap glorify God?"


I need an eye rolling icon here.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 15:13.

Every year or so I go through a phase of growing a beard. Or, at least trying to. I am currently in one of those phases, and I'd say it's my most productive one to date. Yesterday was three weeks since the last shave.

Many men would have a full grown beard by this point. Some might even have the whole Grizzly Adams look going on. But me... well, I'm not like most men.

You may have heard before, or noticed in old martial arts movies, that Asian men have less hair follicles per square inch than some others. Looking in the mirror, I'd say that's true. My facial hair... it looks like it obviously should be a beard. I have a shadow of a beard. My plan is to let it grow five weeks, and then determine at that point if it looks plain silly, and needs to go. I'll keep you updated, though you shouldn't expect a picture.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 09:42.

Hello, I like to make myself feel good by putting down people that are smarter and more popular than me.

posted by Richard Okimoto at 08:01.

I am disturbed.

This morning, via Google, I discovered at least half a dozen blogger blogs that have my archives as their archives. What is up with that?

posted by Richard Okimoto at 10:24.