Click the image to be taken to Dr. Richard Lindzen's Global Warming power-point presentation, given at Rockhurst University, 2/11/2009 .
Reality behind bars
8 years ago
Monday, December 14, 2009
Global Warming: What is it all about?
Click the image to be taken to Dr. Richard Lindzen's Global Warming power-point presentation, given at Rockhurst University, 2/11/2009 .
4 comments:
Nice post over on Ichabod under "Awww, ain't that sweet". I only wish Jackson would take a few pages out of your book regarding demeanor. His claim that is blog is satire is hardly that most of the time. As I have said before, your posts have made me take a long hard look at where I stood and I have re-evaluated and changed my stances on quite a few issues. I get where you are coming from based on your past history and I am thankful the Lord rescued you from it.
The liturgical church is still a man made entity. We pray that the Lord will draw nigh to us when we go to worship and partake of the sacraments. And we know He does come to us because He promises us where two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in the midst. The caveat for me is when people cling to the liturgical church and say that this is the only way. Then this ceases to be worship and falls into the category of methods.
Back to your post. I'm curious to know where you stand on this UOJ issue that Jackson keeps kicking the goad on. You stated: "Both serve his purpose equally well – to cause man to direct his eternal hope away from the objective promises of Christ to some other god, and to rob mankind of his Salvation." WELS supports UOJ and this statement sounds to me as if you are right there as well.
I'm posting over here since if I posted over on Ichabad, it wouldn't see the light of day. He no longer posts my comments when I sign them or sign in under Luther Rocks.
JK
JK,
I'm currently traveling, and have had limited time to respond to your post. I'll try to respond to your second paragraph, along with other thoughts, tonight in a new blog post. As for Dr. Jackson over on Ichabod, it appears that he is now posting your comments. Not sure what the circumstances were in your previsous attempts to post there...
Until Later,
Freddy Finkelstein
I believe that Ichabod is in error on Justification. We just did a study of it at church. The main thing is that it is completely offensive to man to want to believe in the Universal Jusification, done by Christ for us, which is simply laid hold of by the instrument of faith. To make faith the object of or worship or hope is to at minimum put the emphasis on the wrong thing and not on Christ and his all sufficient work already accomplished. At worst it becomes an idol in and of itself. I have yet to hear any WELS pastor saying that people in hell are forgiven sinners. They are there and have forefitted that forgiveness. To make any other deal out of it is plain obfuscation.
In Ichabod's writing, he is correct about the Confessions not mentioning Objective Justification. At the time, the focus of the confessions was on Subjective Justification or Justification by Faith - (which is completely tied to Objective Justification and is a cohesive whole, whether we understand it or not) as opposed to what was the primary battle of the day or "Faith plus Works" that the Roman Catholic church still promotes today.
Ichabod would not leave a quote of Luther up on his site that I posted where it clearly shows Luther's understanding that forgiveness is already done. It's here on Freddy's site somewhere.
Jackson is absolutely correct about CGM, CC and the offense it has caused and the terrible effects it is having on confessional Lutheranism. Unfortunately he does his arguments little good with his acrimonious tone and his own polarizing methods. He would do well to simply state the facts and let them speak for themselves.
As for UOJ, since Jackson cannot clearly make me understand what it is that I think he is trying to say, there is no point to trying to listen anymore.
Joe, as for the liturgy, I know you are a pop musician,so you inclinations may be to gravitate to that type of worship - perhaps to salve or meld your conscience in some way with regard to your secular playing/performing, which in my opinion, does not need salving. The big question of liturgy over pop style worship is: knowing the completeness and sufficiency of the liturgy, why would anyone want to go pop style? There is only one possible answer in my mind and that is it feels good. This is a dangerous road to go. Given all the other offense that it has caused, the mirror of the heterodox it shows and the dangers of blurring Law and Gospel (which has been repeatedly shown), I don't know any reason why one would not want to stay with the liturgical worship and the catholicity it provides.
Wish I could address Ya...
Thanks for your post. I just saw this today. Its been awhile.
I love your second paragraph. Confessional Crusaders seem to forget the context of the Confessions.
I am a pop musician. But I was a church musician first. I didn't get the salve/melding comment at all. To be honest, I was bored with liturgical worship. Maybe that comes in large part because of the musician in me. We are always in search of the next great song to play. And I'll take that a step further and say yeah CGM did influence me...DID!... for a while. I am no longer in that camp and have grown a new appreciation for the liturgy thankfully because of places like this.
That being said, it does not mean that the liturgy never changes. I'm not talking about taking the components out of the liturgy. Going from German to English WAS change. Adapting old hymns to 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century harmony WAS change. This in itself was a change in music style. So it stands to reason that a well composed sacred song with solid Lutheran lyrics in a contemporary setting should be OK. I don't see the difference. And I don't see why music shouldn't make you feel good. Yes, it depends on where it is coming from/motivation and I don't think you were saying you shouldn't feel good. I have seen folks in one breath say that a hymn choked them up but then say its wrong to feel that way about a song in a modern setting. I still can't get through Lamb of God, Pure and Holy at the end where you sing "Oh, Jesus." I feel the same way when I hear Hillsong do "At the Cross". What's the difference?
BTW...welcome back, Freddy.
JK
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.