
Ahh, childhood memories.
During our recent move, I found this little memento from my past, pictured to the left.
When we were children, my brother and I were baking mud pies is this little tin stove. Sounds innocent enough, right? The problem is, this culinary undertaking took place in my father’s corn crib.
The fire we so wisely built on the floor of a wooden structure, destroyed, of course, said containment system. Who would have seen that coming?!?!?
Just one of the many delightful playtime activities my brother and I engaged in.
We were so cute.
Little Tin Stove November 9, 2009
My Review of “Through Painted Deserts” November 6, 2009
This is my 3rd Donald Miller book. I must say, it’s my least favorite of the three. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying it’s bad. It’s actually quite good. I just liked the other two better.
In “Through Painted Deserts” Donald chronicles a road trip he took with a friend in a beat up VW van. The main destination was the Grand Canyon. There were, of course, plenty of adventures before and after. They lived in this van. They slept in the van, and in the woods, and wherever they could.
I can somewhat identify with the story. In the 70’s I took a trip to the Grand Canyon with two other guys and a girl. The four of us, and all our camping gear, in a Vega! Yeah. Fun. Well, I think they all enjoyed it. Me, not so much.
Anyway, this is that kind of story. Miller makes many observations of life and Christian spirituality, just probably not as many as in his two previous works.
“I’ve learned that I don’t really know much about anything. Life is not a story about me, but it is being told to me. I think that is the ‘why’ of this ancient faith I am caught up in: to enjoy God.” – Donald Miller -
So, I do recommend this book, but only after “Searching For God Knows What,” and certainly after “Blue Like Jazz.” If you get through those two, and still want more Donald Miller, then read “Through Painted Deserts.
I’m looking forward to his latest, “A Million Miles in a Thousand Years.” Hey, it’s even got Steve Taylor in it. That should up the sarcasm!
– dave
On Bible Inerrancy October 28, 2009
Some points made by Jim Denison:
The word “inerrancy” has been defined and qualified in too many different and highly technical ways to be of any theological use; therefore, we ought to prefer to speak of the “trustworthiness” or “authority” of the Bible.
The concept of inerrancy, since it is applied exclusively to the original Bible manuscripts, actually undermines the faith of believers in their own copies of the Bible.
Inerrancy is a recent doctrinal innovation not shared by those in Christian history whom we ought to emulate—that it is not among our theological “roots.”
Rather than the denial of inerrancy’s leading to other heresies, the affirmation of inerrancy leads to unwarranted divisiveness.
Inerrancy is a philosophical position not supported by the statements of the Bible itself.
The Bible actually is not inerrant; therefore, to apply the test of inerrancy to the Bible is to set the Bible up to fail at a test that it does not and would not apply to itself, and thereby to undermine one’s belief in the “trustworthiness” of the Bible.
———————————————-
Nowhere in scripture does the bible refer to itself as “the word of God.”
The word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and his name is Jesus.
–df
———————————————-
For more on this subject, go to Now_Read_This.
What Must I Do To Be Saved? October 26, 2009
What must I do to be saved?
Jesus responded to ONE man by saying “…you must be born again.” (Jn. 3:7)
Jesus responded to ONE man by saying “…sell everything you own, and give the proceeds to the poor.” (Luke 18:22)
To one man, there was no mention of giving.
To one man, there was no mention of being born again.
Two seekers. Two responses.
We have made one response a requirement.
We have made one response a nice idea.
One response has had thousands of books written about it, and has been made into a doctrinal staple.
One response has been explained away, and pretty much ignored.
People will quickly say you must be born again because “Jesus said so!”
Really? It seems Jesus said a lot of things that we do not make requirements.
Context? That’s certainly important, but are there really any contextual
differences here that would make one of these statements “necessary for
salvation,” and not the other?
Still other Biblical authors gave different instructions.
Peter indicated you must be baptized. (Acts 2:38)
What must I do to be saved?



