This article appeared in the June 2009 edition of Broadway Christian Church's newspaper, The Harbinger.
Last month’s article concluded by listing four criteria commonly used to explain how early church fathers decided which books would be admitted into the Canon of Scripture. No matter how much one studies the history behind the composition of the Bible, one will realize that, men decided which books belonged. The pedestal on which Christians place the Bible goes a very long way in determining what kind of relationship they will have with God. Either all of the Bible is the Word of God or all of it comes into question because different people can then decide which parts of the Bible they believe are “God-breathed” and which parts are not.
For a moment, consider the possibility that the Bible is the unadulterated Word of God and consider that God wanted the Bible to develop exactly as it has throughout history. With those two ideas in mind, is it possible that God worked through the early church fathers to see that the Bible was compiled in the manner that it exists today? Many people have difficulty accepting the Canon of Scripture as being comprehensive. The ground can appear shaky on this subject, but remember this: the most brilliant of scholars cannot prove that the 66 books that make up the Bible are not the complete Word of God; so, ultimately, it comes down to a question of personal faith anyway. One must accept on faith that the 66 books of the Bible are the Word of God.
In affirming Paul’s writings as Scripture, Peter said that Paul’s wisdom came from God (II Peter 3:15-16). Jesus affirmed the Old Testament as Scripture when he mentioned that everything in the “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” would be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). Scripture does authenticate itself, but in the end people want more than that. However, with matters of faith one must have just that—faith.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
What is the Bible?
This article appeared in the May 2009 edition of Broadway Christian Church's newspaper, The Harbinger:
Churches read from it every Sunday all over the world. It has been translated into more languages than any other written work and more has been written about it than any other subject. People have bought more copies of it than any other book ever written. When listing elements of popular culture, few if any aficionados on the matter would list the Bible, yet God’s Word has managed to reach people on a level that is second to none in the history of the world. Is it merely a coincidence that the Bible has merited and continues to merit so much attention? What makes the Bible so special?
Physically speaking the Bible is a collection of 66 books, likely written over a period spanning 1500 years by some 40 different authors on three different continents. From a literary standpoint the Bible consists of several distinctive literary genres. For example, there are books of history, prophecy, poetry and epistles. The Bible even has genres unique to itself such as the gospels. A scholar could list tens of different types literature found within God’s Word, but these are the basic categories.
Spiritually speaking there is significant debate over how much weight Scripture should be given in the contemporary world. Different churches hold the Bible at differing levels of esteem. Churches created out of the Protestant Reformation hold the view of sola Scriptura, which, when translated, reads “the Bible alone.” Protestants hold the Bible in the highest esteem, labeling it the inerrant and infallible Word of God. Inerrant means, “without error,” and infallible means, “incapable of error.” While these words are not used in Scripture, the principle for which they stand is sound.
Here at Broadway, we like to reference II Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV) which says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Godbreathed is a better way of saying the words, “inspired by God.” While many Christians believe as we do, there are many who question the integrity of Scripture. These arguments come from many different fronts.
One such front is that the Bible was compiled by men, meaning that the books were selected by men. These naysayers argue that other period writings were left out of the biblical canon. The Bible, accepted by the Christians of today, came into being as a result of books being accepted as inspired by God over the early centuries of church history. Criteria that led to the finalization of the New Testament Canon include: apostolic authorship, doctrinal consistency, universal acceptance and a self -authenticating divine nature. More to come!
Churches read from it every Sunday all over the world. It has been translated into more languages than any other written work and more has been written about it than any other subject. People have bought more copies of it than any other book ever written. When listing elements of popular culture, few if any aficionados on the matter would list the Bible, yet God’s Word has managed to reach people on a level that is second to none in the history of the world. Is it merely a coincidence that the Bible has merited and continues to merit so much attention? What makes the Bible so special?
Physically speaking the Bible is a collection of 66 books, likely written over a period spanning 1500 years by some 40 different authors on three different continents. From a literary standpoint the Bible consists of several distinctive literary genres. For example, there are books of history, prophecy, poetry and epistles. The Bible even has genres unique to itself such as the gospels. A scholar could list tens of different types literature found within God’s Word, but these are the basic categories.
Spiritually speaking there is significant debate over how much weight Scripture should be given in the contemporary world. Different churches hold the Bible at differing levels of esteem. Churches created out of the Protestant Reformation hold the view of sola Scriptura, which, when translated, reads “the Bible alone.” Protestants hold the Bible in the highest esteem, labeling it the inerrant and infallible Word of God. Inerrant means, “without error,” and infallible means, “incapable of error.” While these words are not used in Scripture, the principle for which they stand is sound.
Here at Broadway, we like to reference II Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV) which says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Godbreathed is a better way of saying the words, “inspired by God.” While many Christians believe as we do, there are many who question the integrity of Scripture. These arguments come from many different fronts.
One such front is that the Bible was compiled by men, meaning that the books were selected by men. These naysayers argue that other period writings were left out of the biblical canon. The Bible, accepted by the Christians of today, came into being as a result of books being accepted as inspired by God over the early centuries of church history. Criteria that led to the finalization of the New Testament Canon include: apostolic authorship, doctrinal consistency, universal acceptance and a self -authenticating divine nature. More to come!
Why is Friday so Good?
This was published in the April 2009 edition of Broadway Christian Church's newspaper, The Harbinger:
With so much focus on Easter, it seems worthwhile to write a little expose about what happened on Good Friday. Christians recognize Good Friday as being the day on which Jesus Christ gave his life for all mankind so that they might have the opportunity of spending eternity with both their Creator and their Savior. Christians also understand that Jesus Christ had to go to the cross because of sin, mine, yours, etc.
Jesus Christ died in our place at the cross, but what exactly did God accomplish through Jesus Christ on Good Friday? In theological circles, scholars enjoy debating and answering questions such as these; basically what it amounts to is an argument over the application of words to ascribe significance to something biblical. On this topic, one popular debate centers around the words propitiation and expiation.
Since these are not words used in the everyday vernacular, prudence demands that they be defined before going any further. Theologian Leon Morris defines propitiation to mean, “the turning away of anger.” Another theologian, John Stott defines it to mean, “appeasing or pacifying one’s anger.” Expiation, on the other hand, according to Morris, means, “making amends for a wrong.” Webster’s defines it, “extinguishing the guilt incurred.”
Some argue that sinners were propitiated at the cross. While others argue that sinners were expiated at the cross. When one argues that Christians are propitiated, this argument focuses on the believers being spared God’s wrath as a result of the cross. When one argues that Christians are expiated at the cross, they are saying that the sins of mankind were removed at the cross.
Both propitiation and expiation apply to the cross; though propitiation applies more directly than does expiation. Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was a propitiatory offering on our behalf. We learn from the Old Testament, illustrated best in the Passover story, that the turning away of God’s wrath required the shedding of blood. That was never more true than at the cross. Jesus’ death at the cross pacified God’s anger; however, people are not made righteous until they accept what Jesus achieved at Calvary as the only road into eternity with the divine. Our sins are not expiated until our justification, which occurs at baptism. The propitiation made the expiation of our sins possible and that is why Friday was so good for us.
With so much focus on Easter, it seems worthwhile to write a little expose about what happened on Good Friday. Christians recognize Good Friday as being the day on which Jesus Christ gave his life for all mankind so that they might have the opportunity of spending eternity with both their Creator and their Savior. Christians also understand that Jesus Christ had to go to the cross because of sin, mine, yours, etc.
Jesus Christ died in our place at the cross, but what exactly did God accomplish through Jesus Christ on Good Friday? In theological circles, scholars enjoy debating and answering questions such as these; basically what it amounts to is an argument over the application of words to ascribe significance to something biblical. On this topic, one popular debate centers around the words propitiation and expiation.
Since these are not words used in the everyday vernacular, prudence demands that they be defined before going any further. Theologian Leon Morris defines propitiation to mean, “the turning away of anger.” Another theologian, John Stott defines it to mean, “appeasing or pacifying one’s anger.” Expiation, on the other hand, according to Morris, means, “making amends for a wrong.” Webster’s defines it, “extinguishing the guilt incurred.”
Some argue that sinners were propitiated at the cross. While others argue that sinners were expiated at the cross. When one argues that Christians are propitiated, this argument focuses on the believers being spared God’s wrath as a result of the cross. When one argues that Christians are expiated at the cross, they are saying that the sins of mankind were removed at the cross.
Both propitiation and expiation apply to the cross; though propitiation applies more directly than does expiation. Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was a propitiatory offering on our behalf. We learn from the Old Testament, illustrated best in the Passover story, that the turning away of God’s wrath required the shedding of blood. That was never more true than at the cross. Jesus’ death at the cross pacified God’s anger; however, people are not made righteous until they accept what Jesus achieved at Calvary as the only road into eternity with the divine. Our sins are not expiated until our justification, which occurs at baptism. The propitiation made the expiation of our sins possible and that is why Friday was so good for us.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
My father submitted this to the Lexington Herald-Leader and it was published in the Tuesday, March 31, 2009 edition.
Find an interim coach
Conventional wisdom dictates that the University of Kentucky immediately hire an eminently qualified coach in order to hold on to players and recruits.
Unfortunately, that person might not be available at this time. There may be a way, however, to resume UK's winning tradition while the search continues.
What if someone were to temporarily take the helm, someone who understands UK basketball, has proven himself as a collegian, a professional and as a coach, and has the name recognition and reputation equal to the task?
Such an iconic person could not only restore the luster to UK's storied program, but bring back sound and exciting basketball.
Both Pat Riley and Dan Issel meet these criteria, and they know what basketball means in the Bluegrass. Perhaps one of them would be willing to coach and help while the process of finding a long-term solution continues.
It would be far better to follow either of them than to arrive in the aftermath of controversy.
Whirlwind romances can lead to bitter divorces.
Wayne Collier
Lexington
The only thing that bothers me about the entire search for a new coach to serve as the caretaker for the University of Kentucky Men's Basketball Program is the speed with which it has been conducted. Please do not misunderstand me, John Calipari makes my list of first-tier coaches in America. He has the persona and the coaching moxie to lead Kentucky back to the top of College Basketball. He also has a rivalry with the coaches of UK's biggest rivals (Louisville and Tennessee). Any naysayers at this point wants the Athletics Department to be absolutely sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the right choice has been made.
Find an interim coach
Conventional wisdom dictates that the University of Kentucky immediately hire an eminently qualified coach in order to hold on to players and recruits.
Unfortunately, that person might not be available at this time. There may be a way, however, to resume UK's winning tradition while the search continues.
What if someone were to temporarily take the helm, someone who understands UK basketball, has proven himself as a collegian, a professional and as a coach, and has the name recognition and reputation equal to the task?
Such an iconic person could not only restore the luster to UK's storied program, but bring back sound and exciting basketball.
Both Pat Riley and Dan Issel meet these criteria, and they know what basketball means in the Bluegrass. Perhaps one of them would be willing to coach and help while the process of finding a long-term solution continues.
It would be far better to follow either of them than to arrive in the aftermath of controversy.
Whirlwind romances can lead to bitter divorces.
Wayne Collier
Lexington
The only thing that bothers me about the entire search for a new coach to serve as the caretaker for the University of Kentucky Men's Basketball Program is the speed with which it has been conducted. Please do not misunderstand me, John Calipari makes my list of first-tier coaches in America. He has the persona and the coaching moxie to lead Kentucky back to the top of College Basketball. He also has a rivalry with the coaches of UK's biggest rivals (Louisville and Tennessee). Any naysayers at this point wants the Athletics Department to be absolutely sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the right choice has been made.
Before Getting Swept Away
Blogging is something I have wanted to do for quite some time. I registered for this blog two years ago, but never could get my hands around something to post. However, my fanaticism with University of Kentucky Men's Basketball dusted off the cobwebs in my mind hindering me from publishing a post for this blog, Making Sense of It All. Outside of my own vanity and women I have three primary interests: Theology, U.S. History/Politics, Geography and College Sports (primarily University of Kentucky Men's Basketball and Football). So, if you enjoy any of these subjects, you may find this blog interesting. However, please do not anticipate daily posts. I am a working man and the bills must be paid. Thanks for reading and always feel free to disagree.
-- Nate Collier
-- Nate Collier
UK Roster Renovation & Reconstruction
The Herald-Leader published in this morning's (3/31/2009) online edition a link to an article that ESPN Senior Writer, Andy Katz, wrote at this time a year ago when Memphis was slated to play in the National Championship Game. A particular statement in that article stands out with particular relevance now that John Calipari appears to be the next UK coach, "(Calipari) admitted that he recruits players who fit his school. If he were at Stanford, he would recruit players who could be successful at Stanford. But he's not, so he recruits to Memphis -- the same way he recruited to Massachusetts -- by finding players who can succeed at that particular school."
Certainly, UK players fit a certain mold. One does not see UK players wearing headbands or protraying any kind of gangly look out on the court. Regardless of the quality of UK's won-loss record, the program rarely garners a "thug-like" image by how it plays, how its players look or even by how they behave off the court. Furthermore, the UK roster is going to need to undergo major renovation and reconstruction. One of my biggest criticisms of Billy Gillispie would be that he simply had too many players on his team. There were 16 young men who got in a game for UK last year -- three others were redshirted. With only one senior, Jared Carter, UK has 15 returning players and three more waiting in the wings and we are not even yet talking about Daniel Orton, Jon Hood or G.J. Vilarino.
Should Calipari do what everyone now expects and "sign a contract" to come and become the 21st coach of the "greatest tradition in the history of college basketball," ESPN reports that he will likely be able to bring the top three high school players in the nation, according to rivals.com, to Lexington with him (John Wall, DeMarcus Cousin and Xavier Henry). That would escalate the roster to 24 players! The NCAA allows only 13 scholarships for basketball. Now, what UK fan does not want winning basketball? However, does loyalty mean anything? There are guys who have shown a commitment to this program by enduring the rumored harsh mind games of Gillispie. Can UK potentially bring in better players? Yes. Should they? Now that is another question. Whatever happens, one should expect massive defections to occur whoever comes in to take the helm -- few coaches would want even 18 players on their roster.
As for all the recruits from whom Gillispie received verbal commitments. The new coach will have to evaluate those scenarios one-by-one and reserves the right to revoke if he feels that is the right thing to do, but for guys who are already here, that is a different matter. It is easy to overlook the human element in things when it comes to producing winning basketball. These young men have aspirations, they have a mom and a dad and a great opportunity to play at UK before them. Are they less deserving than a blue-chip recruit that could come? College athletics is a business, no doubt about that, but where is the line?
Certainly, UK players fit a certain mold. One does not see UK players wearing headbands or protraying any kind of gangly look out on the court. Regardless of the quality of UK's won-loss record, the program rarely garners a "thug-like" image by how it plays, how its players look or even by how they behave off the court. Furthermore, the UK roster is going to need to undergo major renovation and reconstruction. One of my biggest criticisms of Billy Gillispie would be that he simply had too many players on his team. There were 16 young men who got in a game for UK last year -- three others were redshirted. With only one senior, Jared Carter, UK has 15 returning players and three more waiting in the wings and we are not even yet talking about Daniel Orton, Jon Hood or G.J. Vilarino.
Should Calipari do what everyone now expects and "sign a contract" to come and become the 21st coach of the "greatest tradition in the history of college basketball," ESPN reports that he will likely be able to bring the top three high school players in the nation, according to rivals.com, to Lexington with him (John Wall, DeMarcus Cousin and Xavier Henry). That would escalate the roster to 24 players! The NCAA allows only 13 scholarships for basketball. Now, what UK fan does not want winning basketball? However, does loyalty mean anything? There are guys who have shown a commitment to this program by enduring the rumored harsh mind games of Gillispie. Can UK potentially bring in better players? Yes. Should they? Now that is another question. Whatever happens, one should expect massive defections to occur whoever comes in to take the helm -- few coaches would want even 18 players on their roster.
As for all the recruits from whom Gillispie received verbal commitments. The new coach will have to evaluate those scenarios one-by-one and reserves the right to revoke if he feels that is the right thing to do, but for guys who are already here, that is a different matter. It is easy to overlook the human element in things when it comes to producing winning basketball. These young men have aspirations, they have a mom and a dad and a great opportunity to play at UK before them. Are they less deserving than a blue-chip recruit that could come? College athletics is a business, no doubt about that, but where is the line?
Letter to the Lexington Herald-Leader, 3/22/2009 (Author's Cut)
Billy Gillispie has struggled, in part, because he does not understand his role. He does not report to Mitch Barnhart so much as he answers to the people of Kentucky, who see him as a caretaker of a tradition with which so many of them feel a personal connection. People loved Rick Pitino, not just because he won like Adolph Rupp, but because he let the Big Blue Nation know that he had their concerns at heart. Pitino’s empathy was best displayed by how he communicated with the Kentucky faithful after a loss. He addressed mistakes head-on, preached fundamentals, credited hard work and held 6:00 AM practices – when needed. This reassured knowledgeable Kentucky fans that mistakes were going to be corrected and progress would be made. Coach Gillispie’s resistence to change, curt remarks and public withdrawal have not instilled dedicated fans with confidence. The opposite is true - everyone knows that many of the problems that plagued this team in November remain – nothing seems to have changed for the better. Mr. Gillispie thinks that the team belongs to him and that it is none of our business. He is in error.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)