exceptionnoted
Sometimes we take exception. Sometimes we make one.
Archive for the month “February, 2014”
Why So Anonymous?
One of the biggest problems in ministry today is the personality cult of pastors, evangelists and teachers. Being anonymous helps readers to be objective rather than subjective depending on who’s doing the writing. There have been many foolish things embraced by the American Church as a result of
popular ministers and their published works. Anonymous writers help keep the focus off of themselves and more onto their content, so the reader can be more impartial when it comes to embracing certain teachings.
The “prosperity gospel” is an example of how popular ministers—who think that the Gospel is there to make money—decided to preach and teach such foolishness and ended up garnering a ridiculous following in the process. Because Rev. Ike, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin and all the other prosperity old timers preached on this topic, their followers just assumed that it must be true. In other words, people believed…
View original post 292 more words
A Review of Alex Chediak’s Preparing Your Teens for College
In Preparing Teens for College Alex Chediak has authored the quintessential handbook for the parents of college-bound teens. It serves, in some ways, as a distinct prequel to his earlier excellent volume on Thriving in College.
Chediak adopts a conversational tone and technique to communicate Biblical principles and parameters for issues involving faith, friends, and finances. The conversational tone will help parents adapt the discussions to their own teens. This book will help parents frame even difficult questions and also discover answers with their teens and not just for their teens. He writes with understanding and in an understandable way. The scope and sequence of the book is easy to follow and the style of the book incorporates quick tips and insets that highlight big picture moments. The appendix on planning and saving for college is very helpful.
Alex Chediak writes with a clear love for God and for the parents and teens for whom and to whom he writes. He deals clearly with the necessity of conversion and the new birth; he gives careful attention to the gospel.
This book comes highly recommended and I am pleased to add my own.
How Ken Ham Won the Debate
I watched the debate with great interest; I watched reactions to the debate with greater interest. I think Dr. Albert Mohler had the best immediate summary. Compliments and criticisms have not been hard to find from either side’s supporters or opponents. Some secularists were disappointed with Bill Nye; some Christians (especially old earthers) criticized Ken Ham.
Ken Ham won the debate. Here’s how he did it.
- Because of how the debate question was framed: Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern Scientific Era? When I saw the actual question I was surprised. I sensed the question was tilted in Ken Ham’s favor and I was curious that Bill Nye allowed it to be asked in that manner. The question only requires a modest defense of viability in a model of origins. Not superiority, not exclusivity – viability. Why Bill Nye allowed this particular question became moot because he never addressed it, nor did he answer it. Ken Ham demonstrated that scientists who hold to creation as a model of origins function well in our scientific era, practically. Ken Ham also made the case that the creation model encourages scientific inquiry -and confidence in that process, philosophically.
- Because of how emotional and religious fervor obviously drives Bill Nye’s viewpoint. As I watched the debate it became apparent how devoted Bill Nye is to the religion of secular humanism. He speaks of “science” as though it were a pet or a grandchild with all kinds of wonderful potential and precociousness. It was really quite touching; but logically unpersuasive.
- Because of how Bill Nye was unable to define or defend words. He did not want to admit the difference between historical and observational science; he did not want to admit the difference between speciation and macro-evolution. He did not want to grant that creation is a viable model of origins.
- Because of how Ken Ham based his arguments on the Bible. Some thought he would downplay the pre-suppositional apologetics that Bible believers clearly hold. He did not. He presented a coherent world-view that explains the origin of sin, death and more importantly the hope of eternal life. Bill Nye presented his religion, too – an optimism based on no real facts – a religion that hopes life will get gradually better through scientific discovery.
Ken Ham won this debate.
exceptionnoted 