I must follow, if I can...

The First Resurrection of Revelation 20

2009-10-29T21:37:00.001-07:00

Kim Riddlebarger takes a crack at the meaning of the First Resurrection in Revelation 20, and also discusses the "already and not yet" aspect of our "already raised" status in Christ. Sounds familiar. ;-)

“The Age of the Holy Spirit” (mp3)

I know some of you will appreciate this.

Some interesting quotes, and a response

2009-10-28T00:18:00.000-07:00

Observe:

“Jesus can help me get a promotion and he can relieve my stress.” –John Frame

“God is concerned about human happiness, even in the details of our lives.” –John Frame

“Preaching cannot possibly have the precise emphasis that Scripture has, for its work is not to replicate Scripture but to apply Scripture to its readers.” –John Frame

“Not every concern with self is selfish. It is wrong to covet, but not every desire for earthly goods is coveting.” –John Frame

“The law is good news, gospel. And the gospel is law.” –John Frame

In contrast:

“[The] difference between the Law and the Gospel is the height of knowledge in Christendom. Every person and all persons who assume or glory in the name of Christian should know and be able to state this difference. If this ability is lacking, one cannot tell a Christian from a heathen or a Jew; of such supreme importance is this differentiation.” –Martin Luther

Now there’s something Frame said that I just can’t leave unanswered:

“[Jesus] commended David’s behavior in supplying food to his hungry men.” –John Frame

Here's what Jesus really said:

One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:23-28

John Frame falls far short in supplying this passage as evidence to justify the allegorization/moralization of Bible stories. First of all, the point is not that we all should learn a lesson from David’s behavior on this occasion. I think that is obvious when you consider that David’s behavior or that day cost the lives of not only the entire priesthood, but of an entire city (1 Sam. 22:16-19). In a post-9/11 world, how could Frame possibly miss this detail? What’s more, when David heard the news of the resulting massacre, he deeply regretted what he had done. This means if we are going to learn a lesson from this story, it is most certainly not that we should do as David did.

The entire point is the Son of Man is the Lord over everything, even the Sabbath. He is the greater Son of David; if David has the right to use a holy thing on a holy day to meet the needs of his men, how much more does the divine Son of David!

Unlike David, however, Jesus is perfect and has never broken the law. Therefore, we can consider his actions and consider his behavior as an example, as Paul did in Philippians 2:5ff., and numerous other passages. So, if we had to look for personal application in Christ’s example (which Frame would appreciate) instead of just looking at what the text teaches about Christ, what we can glean (pardon the pun) from it is this: meeting needs such as hunger is not in violation of either the Fourth Commandment or the ceremonial law that indicated the showbread is for priests. (See Lev. 24:9. Basically it was the priests’ dinner, and they shared it with David and his men because it was all they had, so this is not actually a violation but common hospitality.) The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore, the Sabbath laws were never intended to be a burden too hard to bear. Again, in this case it is Jesus who is our example, and not David. In the final analysis, all this is very different from Frame’s man-centered and simplistic interpretation, “[Jesus] commended David’s behavior in supplying food to his hungry men.” Jesus did no such thing.

“Instead of drawing a straight line of application from the narrative to us, which typically moralizes or allegorizes the story, we are taught by Jesus himself to understand these passages in the light of their place in the unfolding drama of redemption that leads to Christ.” –Michael Horton

Don't forget to feed the cat

2009-10-27T16:23:00.001-07:00

The Resurrection of Believers: Already and Not Yet

2009-10-24T18:36:00.000-07:00

Richard Gaffin, quoted by Rev. Kim Riddlebarger in A Case for Amillenialism:

The unity of the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of believers is such that the latter consists of two episodes in the experience of the individual believer—one which is already past, already realized [e.g. Col. 2:12: “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead”], and one which is future, yet to be realized [e.g. Col. 3:4: “When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.”]. In the period between the resurrection and the Parousia of Christ, any believer is one who has already been raised from the dead, and is yet to be raised. . . . The distinctive notion that the eschatos, the “age-to-come,” is both present and future, is reflected in [Paul’s] teaching concerning the fundamental eschatological occurrence for the individual believer: his resurrection is both already and not yet. (67)

This passage really helps explain how Jesus’ kingdom is already realized, though we await the final consummation.

True Saints or Hypocrites?

2009-10-18T10:57:00.001-07:00

"True saints have their minds, in the first place, inexpressibly pleased and delighted with the sweet ideas of the glorious and amiable nature of the things of God. And this is the spring of all their delights, and the cream of all their pleasures: it is the joy of their joy. This sweet and ravishing entertainment they have in the view of the beautiful and delightful nature of divine things, is the foundation of the joy that they have afterwards, in the consideration of their being theirs. But the dependence of the affections of hypocrites is in a contrary order: they first rejoice and are elevated with it, that they are made so much of by God; and then on that ground he seems, in a sort, lovely to them." --Jonathan Edwards

Sent from my iPhone

HT: John Piper

"My kingdom is not of this world..."

2009-10-17T21:38:00.000-07:00

You may remember my recent post about the "Evening of Eschatology" at Bethlehem Baptist. Justin Taylor posted recently on What You Must Believe if You Are a Premillennialist, and included a lengthy chapter (really too long for a blog post) reprinted from a Sam Storms work-in-progress. Then Jim Hamilton posted a rebuttal, reiterating his argument from the panel discussion: that at the time of Christ, there were a lot of people, including Zealots and Rabbis, who believed the Messiah was supposed to come and establish his earthly kingdom on the throne of David; but, as it turns out, he didn't come to do that the first time. In Hamilton's view, Jesus is going to do all the things the Jews expected the second time around, when he returns to sit on the throne of David in the Millennium. Hamilton says this principle of expecting the fulfillment too soon is the same when it comes to the end times: that Scripture may lead Amillennialists to think that the consummation will happen at the Second Advent, but, as Hamilton says, it's not going to happen until a thousand years later.

This argument falls flat with anyone who's not a dispensationalist. We interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. We see the Old Testament kingdom and sacerdotal system as types and shadows of the ultimate realities, which are heavenly, and we do not see a legitimacy for a return to the Old Testament types and shadows. We do not see a gap between the First Advent and the coming of the Kingdom. We see Christ as having come as King already. As Kim Riddlebarger put it recently, his victory over sin and death is so much a bigger deal than a king kicking the Romans out of Palestine and ruling over a tiny strip of land in the Middle East. (I highly recommend that mp3 by Kim Riddlebarger about the Kingdom, by the way.)

Riddlebarger quotes Anthony Hoekema and George Eldon Ladd, who said the kingdom of God is to be understood as God's kingly reign over his people as well as the universe. He also says when Jesus said "the kingdom is at hand", it was literally "right under your noses." Its coming has already begun, and Reformed Christians believe it will finally be consummated when Christ returns.

Even Abraham, when he received the promises from God about making a great nation from his descendants, did not consider an earthly kingdom the ultimate fulfillment of the promise. "For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God" (Hebrews 11:10, ESV). This kingdom that Abraham looked forward to is spiritual, and though there was a physical kingdom from his descendants, this was a shadow of the things to come. "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel" (Hebrews 12:22-24, ESV).

Hamilton says, "From the eagerness of the disciples to reject the idea that Jesus was going to suffer in Jerusalem, and from their desire to see the kingdom restored to Israel in Acts 1, they seem to agree with Justin that the continuation of sin and death is depressing." But what he doesn't understand is that the disciples had it wrong! We are not supposed to justify our misinterpretation of Scripture by saying that's what the pre-Pentecost disciples did so it must be right! the mistake the disciples made was that they had an over-realized eschatology. They failed to understand that Christ's kingdom is "not of this world", and never will be of this world! (I submit that premillenialists are committing a gross error by neglecting this verse.)

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger writes in his book, A Case for Amillennialism,

Much like modern dispensationalists expect Jesus to reign over the nations in the future millennial kingdom, the Jews expected the Messiah to establish a political kingdom whereby Israel would rule over the Gentile nations. This explains why the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah. The New Testament, however, equates Israel's restoration, prophesied in the Old Testament, with Jesus' kingdom--a kingdom not of this world (John 18:36). (pp. 59-60)

Jesus is already sitting on the Throne. Revelation 3:21 (ESV) says, "The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." Jesus conquered (past tense), and sat down on the throne, indicating his work is complete.

As the author of Hebrews says,

And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,” (Hebrews 10:11-16, ESV)

Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father, on a throne that is much greater than David's chair, governing the hearts and minds of his people. He is the king of the elect, and his kingdom knows no bounds.

When Stephen spoke about the nature of God's kingdom to the Jews with their over-realized eschatology in Acts 7, they stoned him.

"Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,

"'Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,
or what is the place of my rest?
Did not my hand make all these things?' [...]"

Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. (Acts 7:48-50, 54-58, ESV)

Hamilton says they expected Isaiah 11 and 65 to be fulfilled at Christ's first advent, but it wasn't, so it's going to be fulfilled when he returns. But this argument falls back on itself, because he says it will not be fulfilled at Christ's second coming just as it was not fulfilled at his first. The wolf-and-lamb, child-and-adder, lion-and-lamb imagery in Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 65 are symbols for peace, representing the undoing of the effects of the Fall of Adam, which we who are justified by the blood of Christ experience. R.C. Sproul's Reformation Study Bible says that Isaiah 11 and 65 are fulfilled in Ephesians 2:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:11-12, ESV)

Jim Hamilton mentions Isaiah 11 and 65 in an attempt to support his argument that death and suffering will continue for another 1,000 years while Christ is actually sitting on a physical throne in Jerusalem. But Scripture is explicit that at the consummation, death and suffering will be no more. It is one thing to say the Old Testament prophecies were partially fulfilled at the first Advent, with an expected consummation at the second: the New Testament teaches us this. But there is no grounds to say that they will be partially fulfilled at the second advent and then finally consummated after another thousand years. The only way to do this would be to take an overly-literalistic approach to Revelation 20. But Revelation 20 makes much more sense if you interpret it in the context of the literary framework of Revelation, as the seventh and final in a series of visions that each describe, from a different vantage point, the entire period of redemptive history between the kingdom's coming (in the First Advent) and its final consummation (in the Second Advent). The principle of the perpescuity of Scripture means that we interpret the least clear parts of Scripture with the clearest. If there is any one singular passage of Scripture that makes no sense on its own, we cannot come up with an interpretation that is not supported anywhere else.

The flaw of the Jews who expected a political Messiah was that they interpreted Old Testament prophecy "reading through the lens of current events", internalizing them and making them personal to the state of the Jewish nation under Roman oppression. The flaw of dispensationalists is that they interpret Old and New Testament prophecy with the daily newspaper in the same way, "reading the Bible through the lens of current events," naming Antichrists, Gog, and Magog, the Mark of the Beast, etc., based on what's happening in the news.

But His kingdom is not of this world.

Eschatology Panel at Bethlehem Baptist Church

2009-10-10T20:19:00.000-07:00

John Piper asked some teachers to remain after the Desiring God conference for a panel discussion on the three views of the millennium in Revelation 20. The audio, video, etc., can be found here. Sam Storms argues the amillennial view based on Paul's description of the abolishment of death in 1 Cor. 15 ("The last enemy to be destroyed is death." v. 26, ESV). His interpretation of Revelation 20 is the same as what I've read from B.B. Warfield: the millennial reign of the saints refers to the martyrs in the "intermediate state", before the throne of God above. Doug Wilson argues the Post-millennial view, declaring that we are moving towards a "Golden Age" where the Gospel will have a literal reign on the earth. Jim Hamilton argues the historical Pre-millennial view. His interpretation of Revelation 20 is something that you "make room for", and "use your imagination". He says that just as the Gospels say Judas was hanged, but Acts says he "fell headlong"; and in the same way, his interpretation of Revelation 20 does not require conformity with the rest of Scripture (e.g. what Paul and Jesus say), but is something that can be added. John Piper tries to hold it all together and maintain unity through it all.

The two-hour session is a good overview for the different perspectives for those who don't know where they stand as well as those who have picked a team but need to know more about what the others say.

Jonathan Edwards, Healer of Rifts

2009-10-09T14:31:00.001-07:00

Today the power was out at work mid-morning. We were sent away to lunch early but then expected to return, and then sent home when it was determined the power would likely remain off for most of the afternoon. so I had twice as many commutes today as I normally do, during which I was listening to Steven J. Lawson lecture on the great American puritan Jonathan Edwards.

I was particularly struck by a story about Edwards' 8-month internship at a Presbyterian church in New York City (at which time he wrote the Resolutions). This small congregation had split from its parent church not because of theological or doctrinal agreements (they had none), but because of matters of polity. After 8 months under Edwards' preaching, Lawson said, the congregation decided to return to the very church they had left.

Douglas Sweeney puts it this way,

Within a year, their schism was healed, thanks in part to Edwards' ministry. Anderson resigned the pulpit at First Presbyterian and Edwards' flock returned to its former pasture. Despite the brief and rocky history of this wayward congregation, though, its people treated Edwards well and gave him room to grow. By all accounts, his first pastorate proved a blessing to all concerned.

I suppose the story loses some impact when you consider that one who had offended the disaffected had resigned; you don't know if the other pastor's resignation is a cause, or an effect, or merely incidental. Regardless, that's a nice legacy to leave. Most modern American churches are centered around their pastor, rather than the flock. In Edwards' time, for the most part, the flock was the flock, with exceptions in large towns like New York where you had people from different religious backgrounds (the city was mainly Anglican). It's good to see the flock reunited.

Christianity and Popular Culture

2009-10-05T21:29:00.000-07:00

This episode of The White Horse Inn from September 20 is a must-listen: Christianity and Popular Culture (it's actually a rebroadcast from 12 years ago). Michael Horton and his guest Ken Myers offer a poignant and precise critique of the "Christian" industry ghetto, with its second-rate rock stars and cheesy praise choruses that bear more resemblance to commercial jingles than to legitimate art. It's followed up by panel commentary that includes Kim Riddlebarger pointing out that those evangelicals who reject covenant theology tend to be the same ones who embrace the fads and shallowness of the "Christian" ghetto. Don't miss this one. All pastors and worship leaders and elders should listen to this, as well as their wives, and anyone who goes to church or has ever been to church and who feels like there's something "off" about those Christian radio stations, bumper stickers, bookstores, etc.

What the LCMS says about Body Modification

2009-09-14T22:46:00.000-07:00

For body-modified Christians like myself, here is a helpful answer from the Q&A of the Lutheran Missouri Synod (a.k.a. the good guys) that emphasizes the difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law.

I[t] should be kept in mind that the prohibition in Leviticus 19:28--"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord"--belongs to Old Testament levitical or ceremonial law--which has been set aside or annulled with the coming of Christ (Col. 2:16-17; Acts 15). Leviticus is full of such laws, including the command one verse earlier: "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

It falls into the "weaker brother" category from Romans 14. Of course we don't want to offend our brothers. But there are levels of appropriateness in terms of avoiding offense. For example, if you have a visible tattoo, say, on your neck, and the only way to cover it up is to wear a scarf or turtleneck, in the summer... the more appropriate way brothers to deal with offense might be to deal with prejudice and legalism in the weaker brother instead. If such a one is offended by a Christian with body modifications, is this person going to be crippled from being able to minister to unbelievers downtown or in the soup lines?

Martin Luther wrote in his commentary on Galatians, "This difference between the Law and the Gospel is the height of knowledge in Christendom." As church leaders, whenever we have the opportunity to stifle legalism, perfectionism, and man-made religion, we owe it to our beloved church to take that step. As covenant theology types, we believe the Gospel preached by Christ and his Apostles was the same message of salvation given by God in covenant to Abraham and David, who put their trust in the Messiah who was to come. We know that "by the works of the law no one will be justified," but Scripture also says if we love him, we will obey his commands. We are told all over the New Testament to pursue righteousness, to be obedient, and to avoid sin, and the moral law is where God defines righteousness and sin. So we want to do all we can to make sure we understand the difference between God's binding moral law (his commands), and the temporary, localized ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, so that we can spur one another on toward sanctification and yet not burden each other with burdens too hard to bear.

Chuck Smith on avoiding the reign of antichrist

2009-09-14T10:10:00.001-07:00

Maybe you don't want to accept Jesus Christ and would rather go the hard way [i.e., through the seven-year tribulation]. You'll have to find some means of surviving for seven years without depending on this corrupt society. This society will be totally taken over by the Antichrist. No one will be able to buy or sell except he has his mark. If you take the mark, you are lost forever.

The best plan is probably to take off for the jungles of Mexico and learn how to live off the land. Just do your best to survive down there. I would suggest the remote areas of Oregon, but I don't know how you'd survive the winters. (Chuck Smith, What the World Is Coming To, Maranatha House, 1977, 198-199)

There are so many problems with this, but I will just mention a couple. First of all, if you are a pre-tribulational, pre-millennialist, you should not be offering people an alternative to accepting Jesus as Lord. God is going to judge wickedness, and you should not offer people any way out of that judgment other than salvation in Christ alone.

Beyond that, you have to wonder, every single time a democrat gets elected president, whether Chuck Smith followers believe it's the antichrist and move out to Mexico or the Oregonian outback precisely because of what Chuck Smith said. How many families are holed up in compounds in the middle of nowhere, avoiding taxation, etc., because of this kind of teaching?

In contrast to this, Romans 13:1-8 (ESV) says:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

HT: Kim Riddlebarger

MacArthur on the Dangers of Innovation

2009-09-12T17:45:00.001-07:00

Here is John MacArthur speaking about the use of Bible commentaries by (long) dead writers, from a message last winter called "The Consequences of Non-Expositional Preach, Part 2":

In preparation for Mark, I think I've read about 30 commentators... Most of them are dead writers. Because I honor the work of the Spirit of God in the past. I have great respect for the illumination of the Spirit on great godly students of Scripture in the past... The critical doctrines, the critical truths of Scripture, have long before me been interpreted accurately. And when I come up with something that nobody's ever said, gag me.

Amen! Would that all preachers would respect history in such a manner!

A sure sign that you are a spiritual prig

2009-09-04T19:31:00.000-07:00

Beware of allowing yourself to think that the shallow concerns of life are not ordained of God; they are as much of God as the profound. It is not your devotion to God that makes you refuse to be shallow, but your wish to impress other people with the fact that you are not shallow, which is a sure sign that you are a spiritual prig. Be careful of the production of contempt in yourself, it always comes along this line, and causes you to go about as a walking rebuke to other people because they are more shallow than you are. Beware of posing as a profound person; God became a Baby. (Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, Nov. 22)

iPhone stuck pixels

2009-09-04T14:58:00.001-07:00

This blog saved my iPhone!

http://www.knoxing.com/2007/08/05/iphone-stuck-pixels/

1984 Down the Memory Hole

2009-08-30T21:24:00.001-07:00

The irony of this story is striking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html

Sent from my iPhone

Our Little Chargers Fan

2009-08-29T17:15:00.000-07:00

At the Chico Air Show

2009-08-29T10:51:00.000-07:00

Huh?

2009-08-18T19:37:00.001-07:00

Are you kidding me?

Watch out for Credit Card Rate-Reduction Scam

2009-08-17T09:59:00.001-07:00

See the Bankrate report here.

I just got a call from one of these jerks. The guy said, "This is Dale from Financial Services." I said, "Who is this?" He repeated his answer. I said, "Who is Financial Services?" And he hung up on me, proving that it is a scam. Whenever you get a call about your credit cards, make sure it's from your bank.

Griffin Clarifi

2009-08-14T16:58:00.000-07:00

This is a really cool iPhone case: http://blog.evernote.com/2008/11/18/evernote-and-griffin-clarifi/

Is Cap and Trade for Babies Next?

2009-08-12T09:07:00.001-07:00

That's the title of this article from Al Mohler: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4220

Sent from my iPhone

"So also my heavenly Father will do..."

2009-08-08T22:45:00.001-07:00

This is the kind of reaction we should have whenever we think of Matthew 18:

"O Lord, grant that I feel more amazed that I am forgiven for my wrongs than that I have been wronged." - John Piper via Twitter

Sent from my iPhone

"Do I offend?"

2009-07-27T10:03:00.000-07:00

Today's post from Al Mohler is a repost from a few years ago, but it
is great nonetheless. He warns about the dangers of succumbing to a
"culture of offendedness", and also explains that the word "offend" as
used in scripture, does not mean what we think it means.

READ THIS: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4155

Sent from my iPhone

"If one has a complaint against another..."

2009-07-26T14:56:00.000-07:00

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Colossians 3:1-17, ESV)

Google Latitude for iPhone

2009-07-25T18:12:00.001-07:00

MacWorld just announced that Google Latitude had finally been released
for the iPhone, but as a web-app as opposed to a proprietary app
downloaded from the App Store. See here for details: http://www.macworld.com/article/141891/2009/07/google_latitude_iphone.html

The browser-based model is much more in line with Google's vision, I
think. There are a lot of apps in the app store that would be more
appropriate as web apps. Also, Safari would be able to relay location
to Google with a higher frequency than opening an installed app, since
the apps only run while they are open, and the browser would be active
more often, e.g. when using Google Reader.