Captain America
Captain America: Reborn #1
One of my favorite things about going to a comic book convention is seeing all of the costumes that people make at home. There are contests that people can compete in to win a possible prize. People will dress up as any character in a comic from Superman to Batman to Captain America to Darth Vader to the Predator and Aliens from the movies (there are comics invloving these two movie franchises). I have not seen someone dress up as Captain America since Bucky has taken up the mantle in the wake of Steve Rogers’ untimely demise in the book. Here is a clip of somone dressed up as Captain America and has done a very good job I must say. Even got the gun right too.
Related posts:
No comments
The Newest Imler
Henry Reed Imler
3 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
5 Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. [Psalm 127:3-5 ESV]
It is my prayer that they will be like the parents in Deuteronomy 6 who teach their children to walk in the law of the Lord and that they will be the parents that Paul talks about in Ephesians 6:4, resting upon the Spirit to train up their children in the dicipline and intruction of the Lord.
Related posts:
1 comment
Romans 4:25 and Isaiah 53:11
Sometimes a person can read the Scripture and completely pass over a particular text that can have massive import on shaping one’s theology and understanding of a particular doctrine. I can remember my time as an Arminian (though not a full five-pointer as I was and am Southern Baptist) skipping over John 6 and Romans 9. If I ever did read them I would just pass over them quickly and not pay attention to them. I know that Arminians can have their take on those texts but at least he or she has a theology shaped by them, mine wasn’t. The same is true for me in regards to Romans 4:25. What Paul says there is very important to shaping justification and how to understand our right standing before God and Jesus’ role in accomplishing that standing. The background for understanding this text is Isaiah 53:11 and the following is my attempt to persuade you the read to see that. Read more
Related posts:
No comments
Timothy and Isaiah
Moving along in my dabbling in the justification passages in Paul and their relationship to Isaiah 53:11. In Acts 13:38-39, the resurrection of the crucified Jesus in an unstated way effected justification for “everyone who believes.” This parallels what was seen in Isaiah 53:11 where the “Righteous One, my [Yahweh's] servant will justify the many.” Isaiah 53:11 provided the conceptual framework for Paul to articulate justification as he did in Antioch Psidia, resurrection leads to justification. First Timothy 3:16 is another text that I’d likd to look at. Isaiah’s prophecy figures very prominently in Paul’s letter to young Timothy Read more
Related posts:
No comments
The Republic Shall Fall
If that is Lord Angral, dang. That is better than Star Wars Episode I. One of the best saber duels in Star Wars. Well done Biowar, well done.
Related posts:
No comments
Waters on Wright
Guy Waters has offered his critique of N.T. Wright’s new book Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. I like how Wright describes present justification, although I disagree with how he understands righteousness, as the believer sharing in Christ’s vindication by union with the resurrected Christ through faith. Christ represented everyone who believes in him on the cross dying their death in their place. God vindicates him by raising him from the grave, declaring Christ to be righteous–more specifically the Righteous One (I am more and more convinced that imputation is the systematic reality that explains how the exegetical reality of “in Christ” justifies; imputation is not how Paul speaks of justification, union is, imputation clarifies how union works). I think this paragraph by Guy Waters really shows where Wright’s theology becomes inconsistent with itself,
Wright’s articulation of present and future justification in Justification amplifies but does not modify his earlier statements and formulations. For Wright, justification is both a forensic and a transformational grace. The merits or righteousness of Christ are not imputed to the believer. The believer is united to Jesus Christ in his death and his resurrection and shares in the status of Jesus’ vindication. The believer’s sins are therefore forgiven. Indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, he has a new relationship with sin and righteousness, and is inwardly and progressively transformed. The verdict pronounced at the last day will be grounded upon the transformational work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. For that reason the basis of the verdict of future justification cannot be identified with the basis of the verdict of present justification. This fact raises the question how the two verdicts, in Wright’s understanding, can be the same verdict. If the basis of future justification is one’s works, and these works do not yet exist at the moment of present justification, then how can present justification and future justification be the same verdict? Furthermore, on what basis can one have assurance in the present that he will be justified in the future?
One verdict achieved in two completely opposite manners? That seems a little to out in left field for me. I just wish that those of us in the Reformed tradition would pay a little more attention to Wright. He gives some very true and important critques that show we need to reform our own Reformed doctrines.
Related posts:
No comments
Is 53:11 and Acts 13:38-39
Last time we looked at Isaiah 53:11 and saw that through the resurrection of the Suffering Servant he became the Righteous One. And through this one, who is now the Righteous One, the many are justified. Now how does this provide a background for the Pauline doctrine and formulation of justification? That is the question we turn to here in the next few posts. First is the book of Acts, specifically Paul’s statements. Up first is Acts 13:37-39. Read more
Related posts:
No comments
Background to NT Justification in Paul
In reading Michael Bird’s The Saving Righteousness of God, I have come to realize just how important Isaiah 53:11 is to many of Paul’s passages that formulate and utilize his doctrine of justification when dealing with his audiences and troubles, for example the Jew-Gentile divide in Romans and Galatians. I want to briefly delve into this simple text and paint a background for the many places that Paul speaks of justification that does not seem to fit neatly with the traditional Protestant view (this post follows much of what Bird said in The Saving Righteousness of God). Then in the coming posts I want to just illustrate how Isaiah 53:11 impacts those Pauline texts in his letters and in Acts that reflects this verse and understanding. Read more
Related posts:
No comments
Mortal Kombat–KC Chiefs Defense Style
You know, any highlight reel set the Mortal Kombat theme can take a defense that’s 2-14 feel like they are 16-0. I learned this when I saw this highlight reel of the 2008 KC Chiefs Defense. The end to this video is so funny.
I just hope that their new defense can take this highlight reel and expand it out from just a few games a year to every year. There is real potential that I hope Haley and co. can unlock it all.
Oh and FYI: that last part of the video was not a hit to change the rules if it had been John Kitna or Brodie Croyle. The only reason why the NFL changed the rules to make that hit on Tom Brady illegal is because the hit was on Tom Brady, the NFL’s cash cow and we don’t want to hurt the league’s wallet now do we. Forget that this allowed a guy like Matt Cassel to get a chance to be a starting QB for a team of his own–it’s ironic that that hit landed Cassel in KC as our new QB, so ironic and funny.
Related posts:
No comments
James White on William Lane Craig and Molinism
Here are two Radio Free Geneva programs where James White reviews Dr. William Lane Craig’s merger of Molinism, Roman Catholic Synergism and Protestantism. I just don’t get how one can agree with Rome on the nature of grace and the relationship between God’s grace and man’s response to that grace, hold to the Jesuite theology of Molinism (which Rome now rejects) in relationship to God’s sovereignty (as if it is somehow less deterministic that Calvinism), but yet still believe in the Reformed understanding of justification. I just don’t get it. Here are the programs. I have to say that the Star Trek references were awesome, especially to the episode “Mirror, Mirror” from the original series.
Related posts:
1 comment