The Past PHF to Present

Well, actually I didn't play Haman in the Esther play, rather my good friend William did. (And I was very glad, he did great.) In fact our company won Audience Choice Award Drama, at the PHF.
Within the past several weeks I've been helping Jon and Alicia on their new house. The reason is, I've been buying a lot of tools lately and helping Jon is a good excuse to use them ;-).

Esther Play

Well, though I am not the main writer of the Esther Play, as the directer I had to do some changes to it. The final draft is now therefore mainly complete!

Watermelons, Conferences, and PHF plays.

Last Saturday we attended a conference in Des Moines, where Kevin Swanson spoke. He is a great speaker with great worldview. After listening to Kevin Swanson, the funnest thing we did was "camp" in the parking lot with Mr. Tylers RV. That was a good time.
I have also been asked to direct a play for PHF on the story of Esther. Though my participation does not end there, as I am also playing Haman in the play.
Well, my watermelon plants are finally taking off, and the melons themselves are growing exponentially. I'm practically drooling for them!

Rice Bowls and Promo Trailers

Today I was at the Kayser's again, helping Ben with a Biblical Blueprints promo trailer. It turned out ok, I'll try post it in a few days. (We might make some corrections yet.) Because I helped him, Ben took me out to the Rice Bowl, a Chinese restaurant. I was reminded again how much I hate fortune cookies. (but the food was good Ben!) In addition to have lots of fun editing today, I tested out my "new speakers." Actually they just working speakers, pirated from our old Geo Metro, for the newer one, whose speakers oddly enough weren't working. (Sarcasm alert.) One was blown, one didnt work, and the others were missing! Well well, I can atleast play music now. I think I should go wake Ben up now, he's napping here before institutes.

This is the day which the LORD has made we will rejoice and be glad in it!

TRANSGRESSOR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1J2kr6edW0 Watch it now, high quality on YouTube!

Is it Legitimate to Classify the Attributes of God as Communicable/Incommunicable?

In Robert Reymond's Systematic theology he says it is not legitimate to classify the attributes of God as Communicable/Incommunicable. This is what he says about Berkhof's use of said classification,

"Berkhof, while employing the incommunicable/communicable classification himself... acknowledges that "it was felt from the very beginning, however that the distinction was untenable without further qualification." He goes on to say, in order to justify his continuing use of the distinction that

"If we... remember that none of the attributes of God are incommunicable in the sense that there is no trace of them in man, and none of them are communicable in the sense that they are found in man as they are found in God, we see no reason why we should depart from the old division which has become so familiar in Reformed theology." "

Reymond then says this, "But these very words give the reason for not using this classification and illustrate the qualifications that have to be introduced into every classification the theologian might select."

With the above portion of his book as the defense of Reymond's position, I want to go through this position systematically, evaluate, and critque it.

Reymond's argument, in short, is this.

A. A classification is not usable/meaningful if it needs added qualification.

B. Berkhof, who supports the Communicable/Incommunicable classification, says it needs qualification.

A+B= C.Therefore the Communicable/Incommunicable classification in not usable/meaningful.

Now presumably, many of those who use this classification would attack this position by concentrating on premise B. They might claim (as Berkhof seems to) that despite qualifications needing to be added it is still a useful classification. This is not the case. If scripture makes no distinction between "communicable" and "incommunicable" attributes, and man adds the "necessary' qualifications, it is an arbitrary system of classification. It would be as meaningless as classifying the Armor of God based on which article of armor each is represented by, and then arbitrarily labeling them.

For example:
A. Clothing: The belt of truth and the sandals of the preparation of the gospel of peace.
B. Weapons: The shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit.
C. Armor: The helmet of salvation and breastplate of righteousness.

A. Regards Salvation
B. Regards Perserverance
C. Regards Sanctification

As you can tell, when classification is used that uses arbitrary qualifications, it is not useful/meaningful.
The same is true of the attributes of God, if there is not a basis for the system of classification in scripture, it is not legitimate.

Now that we have addressed and agreed with Reymond's first premise, let us continue to his second.
Reymond claims that the Communicable/Incommunicable system of classification needs qualification. His proof? Berkhof 'admits' it. "it was felt from the very beginning, however that the distinction was untenable without further qualification." for " none of the attributes of God are incommunicable in the sense that there is no trace of them in man, and none of them are communicable in the sense that they are found in man as they are found in God."
This quote is entirely misleading. Man was made in the image of God, and as such he was made holy, just, and righteous. He was not made in anyway eternal or omnipotent. Now after the fall man is still called to be holy (and enabled to be by the blood of Christ.).
Leviticus 19:2 "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.'" Similarly the Lord says, in Leviticus 22:32 Do not profane my holy name. I must be acknowledged as holy by the Israelites. I am the LORD, who makes you holy.
So we see the obvious communicability of this attribute. If we claim as Reymond does, that we should make no distinction between communicability of holiness, and communicability of omnipresence, then when the Lord calls us to holiness, he is not calling us to something which is possible. In fact if Reymond is correct we could just as well strive for omniscience as holiness!

Reymond's error is heightened and made more obvious when he quotes Donald Macleod,

"None of these [classifications] has much to commend it and certainly none is to be regarded as authoritative. Scripture nowhere attempts a classification... All the suggested classifications are artificial and misleading, not least that which has been most favoured by Reformed theologians - the division into communicable and incommunicable attributes. The problem here is that these qualities we refer to as incommunicable adhere unalterably to those we refer to as communicable. For example, God is "infinite, eternal and unchangeable" (The Shorter Catechism, Answer 4) and these are deemed to be incommunicable properties: and God is merciful, which is deemed to be a communicable property. But the mercy itself is "infinite, eternal and unchangeable" and as such is incommunicable. The same is true of all the other so-called communicable attributes such as the love, righteousness and faithfulness of God. One the other hand, to speak of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence as incommunicable is equally unsatisfactory. If we remove the prefix omni we are left simply with power, knowledge and presence, all of which have analogies in our own human existence."

If Macleod is correct, then when we are commanded to be Holy, we are also commanded to be God! For Macleod states clearly, "The problem here is that these qualities (of God) we refer to as incommunicable adhere unalterably to those we refer to as communicable." (and vise versa) Therefore according to that argumentation, mercy is omniscient or else it ceases to be mercy, and because man cannot be omniscient, man cannot be merciful.
While Reymond has not carried this belief to it's logical conclusion, it remains a dangerous trap. If carried to the logical end, holiness, even in heaven would be impossible for it would be as incommunicable as Omniscience.

In conclusion, man was made sinless, holy, and righteous. He was not made eternal, omnipresent, or unchangeable nor is he commanded to be such. In addition, our God does not command impossibilities. His command for holiness, is also fulfilled by Him in that He is "the LORD, who makes you holy." That is as communicable as you can get. Therefore, finally we find the answer to our question. Is it legitimate to classify the attributes of God as communicable/incommunicable? It is not only legitimate it is necessary!

Lost in the Taiga (a book review)

Lost in the Taiga is basically a documentary book(if such a thing exists) written by a Russian journalist. It follows a family of "Old Believers" of the Russian Orthodox Church, who had moved into the wilderness (Taiga), and were not seen by anyone for 30 years! When Russian geologists finally found them, it was almost like the family had timetraveled from the past. The younger family members were unfamiliar with things like TV, flight, wheels, and the like. They lived almost solely on potatoes, though once in ever great while they would catch deer in their hunting pits.
This book follows their struggles, not only with the wilderness, but with technology, for the 10 years after they were found. Especially interesting is their legalistic determination of what technology was "sinful" or not. They were arbitrary enough to reject matches, but to accept candles. Indeed while they claimed to be "true Christians" they lived in many ways inconsistent with the Christian worldview. Indeed probably the greatest one of these inconsistencies, the reason for their living in the Taiga, was their escapist attitude to the world and exaltation of traditions, from preferences to doctrines.
As this book was written from an atheistic, Communist perspective, it is incredibly interesting to read it from a Biblical perspective. Besides all this, it includes alot of Russian history, which is also interesting.

Practice the Presence of God (a book review)

Can we really fulfill the command to "pray without ceasing." Can we constantly and consciously rest in the Lord and have fellowship with him? If such is possible does it require that you live in a monastery?
These questions and more are answered in a 1600s book by Brother Lawerence, entitled, "Practice the Presence of God." In a simple way his book explains how it is possible to do EVERYTHING for the glory of God, and how to have continuous communion with him. No it does not take a special formula or a higher theological education, it merely requires the express and total purpose of your life be the service of God. That you would view doing the greatest pleasure for yourself, rather than for him, to be a greatest misery possible. And that the most distastful chores, and mundane tasks be done only and totally for him. Indeed it is possible to do something so little as picking up a straw from the ground for the glory of God. Brother Lawerence explained how, because of his communion with God, the private times of prayer where no less times of fellowship with God then when he worked in his kitchen.
While on earth, we will still have failures while excercising this communion with God, Brother Lawerence explained, but yet it is a fortaste of heaven, unbroken fellowship with the Lord.

This book was a great encouragement and conviction to me, I would highly recommend it to anyone seeking closer fellowship with God. You can find it free online here:
http://www.practicegodspresence.com/brotherlawrence/practicegodspresence08.html

A Method For Prayer

"A Method For Prayer" is a book on prayer, written by the well known Pastor and Commentator, Matthew Henry in the 1600's. While his grammar maybe be old fashioned and the book itself is almost 400 years old, it is just as applicable today as the day he wrote it. The relationship with God that he speaks of, and the knowledge of the scripture he had, makes me yearn for those things.
He address each part of Prayer and shows how to use scripture in each of those areas. He does this by listing literally pages of scripture! You might say, "Isn't that sort of boring?" Well you might think so, but Matthew Henry was able in some way, to make it incredibly edifying. So many times I would recognize one of the scripture he was using,(whether it was in Adoration, Confession, Petiton, Thanksgiving, or Intercession.) and think to my self, "What a powerful way to pray that verse." In addition to that, the huge amount of scripture he lists, and the depth to which he digs in each of those five areas, almost makes it a theology lesson!
After addressing those specific parts of prayer, he went on to compile scriptural prayers for public meetings, conclusions of prayer, and an extended Lord's Prayer. After this he gives one chapter of short, non-scriptural prayers (I could tell he was still using alot of scripture, but it wasn't referenced, and it wasn't 100% scripture.).
After this there are three Discourses on how to spend the day with God. If you don't have time to read nine chapters of prayer, you still MUST read these discourses. I found them encouraging, convicting, invigorating, sanctifying, and INCREDIBLY powerful!
The first was on how to begin the day with God. I found myself convicted in that my service and communication to God is almost an after thought, and I forget the thankfulness for the grace He showed me through the night watches.
The second was on how to spend the day with God. In this I was again convicted in the importance of waiting on the Lord, and how little I do it. We are to wait on him whatever the circumstance, whatever the action, etc.
Third was Closing the day with God, and here also I found myself lacking. Prayer to God at the end of the day is of the essence. We must pray for forgiveness, show thankfulness, pray for his protection through the night, not only for physical harm but from spiritual also, and pray that keep our hearts from thinking on wickedness.

In conclusion, this book is one of the most power books on prayer. It is immersed in scripture, and it has truly convicted and influenced me. I thank the Lord for work Matthew Henry, and I especially thank him for this incredible work, A Method for Prayer. I hope everyone who reads this review, will read this book, and I pray that God will use it in your lives, for his glory and the advancement of his kingdom.
Thank you for reading,
In Christ, David.

The Influence of the Dutch

"The Dutch?" you might ask. Did they have an influence on any thing? Aren't the Dutch those people from that tiny country, who live in windmills, and grow tulips? What is that country even called? isn't it Holland?
Well let me start off by addressing your questions, yes the country of the Dutch is very small. It is actually smaller than Nebraska. Now as to the Dutch living in windmills, windmills were actually workplaces, not residences, and today they are more of a national symbol than anything else. It is also true that the Dutch are known for their tulips, but those too, serve in a large part as a national icon. Lastly Holland is merely a province in the Netherlands. To equate the Netherlands with Holland, would be as offensive to the Dutch as a foreigner equating the U.S. with California.
So today I would like to discuss three areas of world culture that the Dutch significantly influenced.
The exploration and settlement of countries,
Philosophy,
and some of their most influential individuals.

Now historically, in the realm of exploring, discovering, and settling countries the Netherlands had a major role. In the 16-17 hundreds it was a major sea power. During that period, it did a lot of colonization, most of the result of which can still be seen. For example, the first Europeans to settle South Africa were Dutch protestants. In addition, the most spoken, and one of the several offical languages there is Afrikaans, a mixture of Dutch and African. Also because of their sea power, the Dutch participated in the exploration and discovery several well known landmasses, New Zealand, which is named after a Dutch province, and Australia, which for over a hundred years was known as New Holland.
Perhaps most important of all, the Dutch had a hand to play in the settling of America.
Albany, New York was started as a Dutch settlement and New York City itself was formerly known as New Amsterdam, after the largest city in the Netherlands. In fact, New Netherlands in the Hudson River Valley, New York was first settled by the Dutch. To this day, many names in and around New York, are derived from Dutch. Who knows whether New York city would ever have become the World landmark and American icon, it is today had it not been for the Dutch.
My second point is perhaps a little more recent. Within the past century, several Christian Dutch Philosophers and their heirs have made huge impacts not only in philosophy and Christian apologetics, but in every area of life. The first of these philosophers was Abraham Kuyper, a man who taught that Christianity concerns more than a man's salvation, but his entire life. Whether it is work Business, Politics, Farming, or Engineering we should never forget that every action must and will be influenced by our worldview.
Cornelius Van Til, Kuyper's intellectual heir, was born and raised in Holland, Netherlands. He became the philosophical Father of Van Tillian Apologetics. Now I suspect most of you know what apologetics is, but I will briefly define it for those who don't. Christian Apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith. Van Til definitely didn't make up a whole new argument for Christianity, rather his apologetic method masterfully follows the commands of scripture, to argue for the truth of scripture and the existence of God.
The work of these men has led to great reformation in the realms of Christian Education, Worldview, and Philosophy.
Now you might feel that this speech is really hopping around, from nation building, to apologetics, to important individuals, but I felt it would be important while dealing with the influence of the Netherlands, to deal with one of their great artists, and one of their great missionaries. Both men who are very famous individuals. Rembrandt Van Rijn was a protestant artist in the sixteen hundreds. His works are some of the most acclaimed of that period. He especially excelled in his portraits of Biblical events. His biographer Visser't Hooft compliments him saying, "Rembrandt is the painter whose art seeks to express a faith exclusively rooted in the gospel."
While not related or a contemporary of Rembrandt, Andrew van der Bijl, also had a faith rooted in the gospel. Now while Mr. Van der Bijl is a famous Missionary you probably do not know who I am talking about. That's because in America he is known simply as Brother Andrew. Now you might remember him. During the time of the Iron curtain and the Soviet Union, Brother Andrew would deliver Bibles to believers in Communist held countries. Now with the collapse of the Iron Curtain, he mainly ministers in Muslim countries. 54 years ago he became the founder of Open Doors Mission,(not the poverty outreach.) a worldwide ministry to the persecuted church.

"Wow!" you might say. How did we start with the Netherlands, and go on to windmills, philosophy, art and missions?! Would you agree now that the Dutch have had a little more influence than you previously might have thought? Indeed this tiny tulip growing nation has influenced world nations, languages, philosophies, art, and missions. Even a little country has more to it than meets the eyes.

The Holy War made by Shaddai upon Diabolus, for the Regaining the Metropolis of the World; Or, The losing and taking again of the Town of Man-soul.

The Holy War is a short novel (approximately 200 pages), written as an allegory by John Bunyan. While not as famous as his earlier allegory, Pilgrim's Progress, I found it nearly as valuable.
The story is structured around one Town of Mansoul. This town, built perfectly, bears the image of it's builder, King Shaddai (Almighty). Now a rebellious servant of this King, by the name of Diabolus, was disowned and dismissed from the King. This Diabolus in revenge, goes to Mansoul and through deceit, gains entry to their town by convincing them to overthrow the rule of Shaddai. Once inside, he distorts the town from it's former semblance, for he mutilates the image of the King and sets up his own image. He also causes the eyes of the mayor of the town (Understanding), who had permitted his entrance, not to see the light. The recorder (Conscience), he also causes to sin, making him a madman, at times sinning and at other times condemning sin of the city. Also the allegiance of Lord Willbewill changed from one that did righteousness, to one who serves Diabolus.
Because of the fall of these three men, the voluntary surrender of Mansoul to Shaddai is impossible. Besides, Diabolus strengthened his stronghold in the city by bring into it all manners of Diabolians (sin), who pollute the city. He also fortifies the Eye-Gate and Ear-Gate, so that enemy penetration will be made even more difficult.
Despite this treachery Shaddai's son, Emmanuel, takes a vow to restore the City for the Glory of his Father.
To tell much more could reduce your desire to read the book, which would be antithetical to my goal. Suffice it to say, The Holy War is a brilliant exposition of many intricate doctrines. Mainly, the fall, conversion, salvation, and perseverance of the soul, not to mention, fellowship with God, the discipline of God in the life of a believer, and sanctification. The list could go on but my explanation of the book will not compare to you going and reading it, for indeed this book review is merely scratching the surface of this magnificent parable.
You can find the entire book online, here. http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.John.Bunyan/Sermons.Allegories/The.Holy.War/index.html

Pilgrim's Progress

Before I read Pilgrim's Progress I did not understand why it is so loved. I had imagined, that for the most part, it was merely a conjectured parable, one based more on emotion and experiences than on scripture. I had suspected that it was not an allegory that could be ranked very comparable with the Christian Life. I was totally wrong! While it is true that every analogy breaks down at some point, the thought that Bunyan put into the allegory of Pilgrim's Progress, makes it line-up SHOCKINGLY well with Scripture.(It also helped that Bunyan didn't just draw thoughts from his mind, but was constantly using scripture as a basis for his analogies!)

There are two parts to Pilgrim's Progress, the first which deals with Christian's journey to Heaven, and the second which deals with Christiana, Christian's wife, and her journey to Heaven along with her children.

In the first part Christian, convicted of sin, and shown the way to go, sets off alone to live the life of a Christian. As he was one of the first from his country to take up the Pilgrimage, he meets few other true Pilgrims on the way, for most of those he meets are either obvious enemies, or hypocrites. Each person has a name, normally describing who they are. (Though there are some whose names are found in scripture, such as Moses and Adam-the-first.) When ever Christian meets another person, the reader is shown how their name indeed describes, both their character and whether or not they are fellow pilgrims. The reader is normally shown this through a conversation between Christian, and the other character. The conversations Christian has with Talkative and Ignorance, were favorites for me. Also throughout the Pilgrimage many trials and dangerous places are met with, places were previous pilgrims had been persecuted and killed and places where the trials separated the wheat and the chaff. One of the most intriguing place was Mount Sinai where Christian seeks relief from his sin. Lastly, on the journey are met places of refreshment and rest where the servants of the True King offer lodging and advice to the Pilgrims. Such was the Delectable Mountains, a place of Peace where Christian met with Shepherd of the King, who gave him many warnings and encouragement.

And that's just the first half!!! The Second half while similar in many ways, as to the places that the Pilgrims come to, and how characters are introduced, but it is also much different. Instead of a lonely pilgrimage like the one of Christian, the group of Pilgrims grows exponentially through the Story which started with only Christiana, Mercy, and Christiana's 4 children. Such was a glorious picture of the growth of the church through history. Also many of trials Christian had gone through now, are safer because of his testimony. While in part one, more evil was met than was good, in part two more good is met with than evil, and much of the evil that is met with is defeated.(Those pilgrims slew 4 giants through their pilgrimage.)Part two also shows many believer all at different stages of their sanctification. Some like good Mr. Fearing see so clearly the grievances of their sin, they are inclined to doubt the grace of God, yet He gives them power to trust him.

In Conclusion Pilgrim's Progress is more than a cute bedtime story, it is a VERY theologically sound book, that shows hypocrites for what they are, the sin of believers for what it is, and the Grace of God for what it is! It deals with the issues of doubt, assurance, lust, and trust. In this short book review I do not feel I can adequately praise it!

Ben Lueder's Concert

Last night I went to a good friend's concert, where he performed a number of the songs he's written. It was really exciting due to the fact that he is not only a good musician, but also a great Godly man and his songs reflect that. I videoed the whole thing and will try upload it to youtube soon. (Some of his previous concerts I already have uploaded. Watch them! His name is Ben Lueders.)

Ehud, Resistance Leader.

Carefully planned assassination attempts... Militia resistance... the overthrow of military occupation... Sounds like a war documentary, doesn’t it? Often we do not visualize Bible stories as documented fact but rather almost as just a good story.
When it comes to Ehud one of the first judges in Israel, it's no different. We rarely consider him as a undercover agent or a general. Sometimes we almost forget he was an actual historical figure. So today, I would like to help you put the "story" in it's real perspective, I would like to dig a little deeper into the brilliant execution of his plot to assassinate Eglon king of Moab and overthrow the occupation forces in Israel.
Now as a background, in that day, the Moabites, in an alliance with Ammon and Amalek had penetrated Israel, set a garrison in Jericho, the City of Palms, and demanded tribute. This continued 18 years, till Israel called to God, and he raised up a leader.

Judges describes Ehud as "a left-handed man. By whom the children of Israel sent tribute to Eglon."
God's chosen judge, was a man of high regard, as it was he who was chosen to present Israel's tribute to Eglon.
Ehud was suited perfectly for the job of leading Israel, and he was a perfect assassin. He had access to the King and he was a man of resource, as he made his own weapons. he was also left handed. Now you might ask why being left-handed is a benefit to an assassin, or is even an important fact to document? I'll get there.
First he designed his weapon. Scripture says "(it was double-edged and a cubit in length)" The described weapon was a dagger approximately this long maybe a little longer (show 14 inch dagger.). His dagger really was a deadly weapon. It was double edged like this one. It was long enough to do a lot of damage, and yet small enough to conceal.
Now according to scripture, Ehud "fastened it under his clothes on his right thigh."
Why is this mentioned? Well as a left handed man, the side he drew his weapon from, was the opposite side of most men. The importance of this is that if King Eglon's security guards conducted quick searches on the tribute bearers, there was much less of a chance that the dagger be discovered. You might ask if the security could be that stupid, to search only the most probable side. I honestly believe so. The example I think of, to illustrate laid back security, is the Iowa State Capitol. Whenever people visit the capitol they are required to go through a metal detector, but there are many security loopholes. The deadly flaw in the system, is the laziness of the guards. I have literally walked through the machine with metal on me, all I had to do was explain to them that it was steel brackets on my shoes setting it off. My point is, lax security does the almost the bare minimum to check for weapons. Such is what I suspect was the case for Ehud. He was able, because of his left handedness, to put his weapon in an unsearched place, without compromising accessibility or speed.
So he brought the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. And when he had finished presenting the tribute, he went to Gilgal and he sent away the people who had carried it. But he himself turned back from the stone images that were at Gilgal. The most interesting thing about how Ehud acted in this situation is that he waited for the opportune moment to strike. Not only by waiting did he give himself a chance to "case the joint" so to speak, but also time to plan his escape route in relation to where ever the king was staying. Now if you consider a map of Israel in his day, you will realize he had some several miles between Jericho and Gilgal (and back) to do his planning.
When he came back to the King he said “I have a secret message for you, O king.”
Eglon said, “Keep silence!” And all who attended him went out from him."
Ehud's choice for the subterfuge was really the only way that he could ask the attendants to leave without actually doing so.
Now he must have been a good actor too, because he grabbed Eglon's attention with his words.
In fact the King stands up to meet him.
"So Ehud came to him and said, “I have a message from God for you.” So he arose from his seat. Then Ehud reached with his left hand, took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. Even the hilt went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the dagger out of his belly; and his entrails came out."
Eglon was obviously a very fat man for the entire knife to be absorbed in his stomach... But let's move on.
"Then Ehud went out and shut the doors of the upper room behind him and locked them."
He was careful enough, to exit the dead king's chamber and not arouse suspicion as he locked the door behind him. Now the servant's realized he had left but must not have seen him lock the door because they assumed Eglon is using the restroom. "When he had gone out, Eglon’s servants came to look, and to their surprise, the doors of the upper room were locked. So they said, “He is probably attending to his needs in the cool chamber.” So they waited till they were embarrassed, and still he had not opened the doors of the upper room."
Meanwhile Ehud headed Northeast to Gilgal and from there he headed Northwest to the Mountains of Ephraim. There he blew the trumpet, rallying Israel. Whether or not they were waiting for the signal is untold, but whatever the case, he was able to quickly mobilize the militia, and give them orders that strategically and effectively sealed the border. His battle plan was not an offensive one were he attacked Moabite garrisons, rather he took control of the fords of the Jordan, so that for the enemy to return to their country, or for their country to send reinforcements, with out the Israelites first being defeated was impossible. Because of these actions, Moab was routed, and every one of the 10,000 occupation forces were killed. So the land had rest.

This indeed was an astonishing feat. Ehud, a general and an assassin, almost single-left-handedly, overthrew the rule of a nation. A plot, as dangerous and complicated, as any other more modern wartime assassinations, was executed flawlessly. When you get home, re-read the tale of Ehud, read it not just as a Bible story but as history.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating all assassinations, only ones which are done in the right circumstances and right ways.

IceBreaker

Mr. (or Madam) Toastmaster, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name for those who don't remember is David Dykstra. It is a great privilege today to speak a little about myself. I pray that this speech will edify you, and I hope that you will evaluate me honestly, by giving me lots of suggestions for how to improve.
There's a tip I'd like to give you to help you remember my name. If you ever forget who I am and can only think of the "tall" guy, it's ok don't panic. One of my friends has told me that to him I'm both David and Goliath.
While I thought about what aspects of myself to share in this speech, I considered numerous possibilities, including but not limited to my birth in a blizzard, my former occupation in a hog confinement, and time I punched my sister over a UNO game. All this these juicy topics and more have been forgone, and in their place has been substituted something hopefully alittle more substantial, my life's purpose.
Now I don't care what our Toastmaster booklet says, but the Icebreaker is not really an easy speech for me. I can assure you, that while an Icebreaker can be relatively simple for someone to compile, and even though they know the topic better than any other human, it is not what I call easy. The reason for this is that in the Icebreaker, I have to make my life and what I see as important in life, interesting to others. Since I save all the speeches I give, I was able to dig into the past to find my first speech ever. It too was an Icebreaker given at another homeschool Toastmasters. Talk about too much boring information. Have you ever read a birth certificate or an obituary? That is probably what my first speech sounded like. Oh and I even brought my birth certificate along to read out loud, just so you could get a feel for what I mean. Name: David Lee Dykstra, Date of Birth: November 1, 1991, Sex: Male, Well I don't think that was included in my first Icebreaker speech... I could go on... Who's interested in hearing my birthplace? Do you really want me to list all my siblings, their names and ages? Will you even remember a thing I've said about myself?... I think you get the picture. As near and dear the nitty gritty details of my life may be to me,in reality, it is tough for others who don't know me to listen or relate. Partially this maybe due to the uninterest of the audience, but a large chunk is due directly to the insignificance of the subject matter which can be presented in present-oriented type way. For example if I were to give an Icebreaker, on my dream career, or dream retirement, it is likely that 50 years from now, the majority of the people in this room would not remember my speech. In addition they would probably not even remember me. 100 years from now, it is probable that only my children and grandchildren will remember me. After the last of my grandchildren have died, the life I lived will have been all but lost. The friends I had, gone. The hot geo metro I drove, the memory disappeared. Even the house I lived in and my hometown, will either be completely changed or demolished. Most likely even those descended from me will have no clue to the details of my life and many of them will not even remember my name. Think about it, how many of you know who all eight of your great-grandparents are? Much less your 16 great-great grandparents? My point is, in the perspective of eternity, the present is drastically over rated. Am I saying that my life, the things I've done, and my goals in life are meaningless? Actually, yes!... If. If I live my life, and base my actions on present-oriented prioritys it is a worthless life from an eternal perspective. Let's listen to a man who experienced this purposelessness first hand.
Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes relates to us the futility of a life lived for oneself. He eloquently ends the book in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:

"Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil."

The world will forget me, my life, and my work, but there is another who does not forget, nor leave a life unjudged. Now, I'm not a good model of my motto, but here it is "Only one life, 'twill soon be past, Only what's done for Christ will last."
Fittingly enough, the author of that phrase is unknown.
Mr. (or Madam) Toastmaster

"Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators" (a review)

"Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators" (written by David Chilton) is the best concise book I've read on the subject of Christian giving and Economics. Indeed medium length, easy-to-read book gives such a diverse analysis of Christian economics as to address tithing, the Jubilee, and National economic policies.
This excellent work of writing was started as a rebuttal to the theology of Ron Sider's book "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger." "Rich Christians" recommends "Christian" socialism, and goes so far as to advise pooling all the world's resources and wealth and then dividing it "equally." Chilton is so good about actually quoting Sider that it isn't necessary for the reader to be familiar to Sider's work. Chilton plows right throw Sider's advised policies and socialist ideals, shedding light on the fact that Sider's work is not just recommending "alternate" economic policies, but is supporting a blatantly ungodly, unscriptural, and thus immoral Communistic type policies. Chilton shows Sider's lies, his inconsistentsy, and his twisting of the truth. But Chilton doesn't just curse the darkness, he outlines solid scriptural, and thus sound economic policies and practices. These include Biblical principles for charity, slavery, and loans.
All in all, if your worldview is lacking in regards to Biblical Economics (and Stewardship) or in how to refute the opposite, I recommend you read, "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators."

Hi there! I have created this blog to talk about less serious matters than my other blog. (But don't worry its not like that blog is my religious blog and this one is secular. For after all one's worldview influences all of their life.)