Mobile Site

Thursday, February 16, 2006 

Two Approaches to the Middle East Conflict

Ariel Sharon's world

I thought this was an interesting perspective. For those who have neither the time nor the desire to click through, I will give a short summary here. The article attempts to demonstrate that Bush and Sharon, while in many ways similar, have had severely different policies on the League of Arab Nations. While Bush has attempted to bring democracy to the Middle East, Sharon has largely dismissed relations with them and gone more for a secluded, isolationist stance. The article has some important ideas to bring up. For those interested in such political maneuvering, I hope this provides fascinating reading.

Labels:

|

Monday, February 13, 2006 

A Reformed Comments Discussion

Mr. David Gadbois of the excellent Mongrel Horde wraps up his three-post summary (Part 1, Part 2, [part three below]) of his weekend getaway to Westminster Seminary California. He attended various lectures, and found much to profit, it seems. The highlight of his posting - and no disrespect to Mr. Gadbois - is what follows in his comments section.

Professors R. Scott Clark of WSC and John M. Frame of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL, share some insightful remarks into the differences of their respective theologies and approaches to apologetics and theology. While overall a terrific conversation, at times it may seem a bit "in house" for some readers. What I consider helpful is point-by-point discussion of various issues. Who would have thought such phenomenal interaction could take place in the comments!

All of this may become the impetus of What the Thunder Said... weighing in on various and sundry issues, from the G. Clark/C. Van Til controversy to archetypal/ectypal theologies. Until then, make sure you take a chance to read the discussion for yourself.

Labels:

|

 

A Sign Unto You

Congratulations to David and Jenecia on the birth of their firstborn, Solomon Edwin Griffiths. May the Lord bless you, keep you, and establish His shalom by the power of the Gospel in the house of the Griffiths until He comes again.

Labels: ,

|

Sunday, February 12, 2006 

Confessing A Confessional Church

Reading: Lectures on Calvinism by A. Kuyper
Listening: I recommend Further Seems Forever's mp3's available here. FSF has announced their immanent demise, which ends the group of guys largely composed since the mid-90's that included the East Coast thrash-metal band Strongarm, which is how I became familiar with these guys. On the link, you will find a smattering of their songs, but all good. (In the future, I will post some Strongarm songs)
Enjoying: the last few chocolate chip cookies

While you are enjoying the audible feast FSF puts on, I thought you might also benefit from some visual stimulation. (click on the picture for an enlarged view)

This is Peter Paul Ruben's classic, "The Descent From the Cross." I first encountered this painting through a former roommate, Eric, who was studying a history of art. I wish I could reproduce his insights into the painting for your sake's.


Rouault's "Christ"

This audacious and controversial painting is aptly entitled "The Menorah." Thoughts as to how this related the Christian hope with Jewish suffering would be greatly appreciated. Likewise, any thoughts regarding how Christ is portrayed and whether any of these would be inappropriate for 2nd Commandment reasons would be welcome in the comments. For those of you on dial-up, I apologize for the (excessive) pictures...

More art to be found throughout...

What is it to be a confessional church?
I have written in a few different places about wishing to reach some sort of categorizational coherence with regards to the term evangelical. (I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the under-30 generation was, is, and [hopefully not] will be obsessed with tags and labels, both for others and themselves. Most of the zeal, I guess, has derived from the desire to make sure I don't end up with certain tags, and that the right tags do find themselves to my circle. I wonder: 1) if other generations were as label-conscious as mine, and; 2) if there is any coincidence to the success of del.icio.us and Technorati in this zealous-to-be- known-on-my-terms era.) Usually, my critical suggestions revolve around some form of my suggesting abandoning the term "evangelical" in favor of advancing to "confessional churches." While this may create certain cozy feelings among some of us (and blank stares - no doubt - from others), what exactly is a confessional church?

Dr. G. I. Williamson, probaly best known for his phenomenal study guide and commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, has a terrific article getting at exactly what we are querying here. After asking our same question, Williamson begins with what a confessional church (the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in his case) is not. To begin with, a confessional church doesn't hijack you at the door and hold your wallet hostage until you sign on the theological dotted line. To quote Dr. Williamson,
It is for this reason that our church makes a clear distinction between the relatively simple vows that adult converts take when they are received as church members, and the more elaborate vows required of those men in our midst who are ordained. This does not mean that the two are out of harmony with each other... The reason is obvious: it is the faith summarized in the Westminster Standards which is taught in the Bible. So anyone who sincerely submits to the authority of the Bible will be able, in the end, to say of these standards what we as office-bearers say; namely, here is the system of doctrine which is taught in the Scriptures.

I'd like to highlight a point made here by Dr. Williamson that may not be manifestly evident to all. It is not enough anymore to simply say, "No Creed but Christ!" or, "We just believe the Bible," or something else close to such theological drivel. There was a day when (presumably) one knew what such a claim meant. In such a time as this, however, the question is, "Who's Christ? Who's Bible?" To claim having no creed but "Christ" is a sitting epistemological duck in today's relativistic, reductionistic, individualistic society. To say one is a confessional church is simply to say expressly "this Christ!" and "this Bible!" Having a creed or confession dictate a body of believers who willingly submit to it is to say, "We read the Bible this way." In a day and age in which all sorts of new doctrines are being submitted to the Pillar of Truth, this is a gem and unparalleled value.

Which is all to say, having a confession doesn't entail undermining the Bible in the life of a congregation. Of course, it is possible to do so. It is also equally as possible to come to Biblio-idolatry or to relegate the Scriptures to the all-glorious Dusty Shelf in The Corner. The beauty of having a confession is promising to read the Bible consistently, regardless of the sway of culture. And most creeds and confessions - the good ones, anyway - are built, brick by brick on Biblical texts. A brief perusal of the Westminster, Three Forms of Unity, or the Bethlehem Baptist Elder Affirmation of Faith shows how integral thousands of bible verses are to composing these man-made, errant documents. Nevertheless, their value lies in being forged in exegesis. We confessed the following yesterday morning in corporate worship as a congregation:
We believe that God, from all eternity, in order to display the full extent of His glory for the eternal and ever-increasing enjoyment of all who love Him, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His will, freely and unchangeably ordain and foreknow whatever comes to pass. We believe that God upholds and governs all things – from galaxies to subatomic particles, from the forces of nature to the movements of nations, and from the public plans of politicians to the secret acts of solitary persons – all in accord with His eternal, all-wise purposes to glorify Himself, yet in such a way that He never sins, nor ever condemns a person unjustly; but that His ordaining and governing all things is compatible with the moral accountability of all persons created in His image. We believe that God’s election is an unconditional act of free grace which was given through His Son Christ Jesus before the world began. By this act God chose, before the foundation of the world, those who would be delivered from bondage to sin and brought to repentance and saving faith in His Son Christ Jesus.
BBC Elder Affirmation of Faith, 3.1 - 3
Such truths do not compromise biblical truth; rather, they establish the Scriptures.

The creeds themselves are aware of their sub-ordinate status. Filling out on the Westminster's admittance that it is not a rule of faith nor practice, but only to help these, Doug Wilson has written the scandalous Now You Tell Me:
One night, after having consumed far too much pizza, an old school Presbyterian minister retired to bed. About two in the morning, after much turning and splindling up in the covers, he awoke in a sweat, and there, hovering over the foot of his bed, in a nimbus cloud of glory, was the Westminster Confession, without the American revisions. He sat bolt upright, his eyes like a couple of shiny hubcaps.

"I didn't know you were an angel!" He exclaimed. "Who knew!"

"My son, my faithful son. I am no angel, but merely a system of sound doctrine. But as far as the seventeenth century goes, I have been told I won 'best in show.'"

"I should say! You're the best!"

"Nay, my son. For like all other synods and councils, whether general or particular, I may err, and have erred, and am not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but rather used as a help in both." The Confession arched her eyebrows, as much as to say that 'we have been over this before.'

"Not a rule of faith or practice?"

"Right. But just a help in both."

The minister was muttering into the covers, bunched up in both fists. "Beg pardon?" said the Confession. The minister lowered his hands. "Uh oh," he repeated.

Though fancifully highlighting what could happen to those subscribing to confessions, such as these are not - to play on the Apostle - using the confession "confessionally." Rather, the confessions act as a bulwark and fortress protecting the sacred text.

Finally, it is very possible that the confessions have errors in them that later generations come to understand. This is not a problem, though, since the Scriptures are the final arbiter. Though this may produce bitter debating over the truth of various passages, creedal fragments help to prevent this and keep the peace of the church.

While I have weighed in, the real value of this post is the following link to Dr. Williamson's post on why confessions are healthy and necessary for today's churches.
link here

Labels: ,

|

Wednesday, February 08, 2006 

Various Quotes on Law and Gospel
Theology

Reading: Blog Entropic Principle on using Mozilla Thunderbird to implement GTD
Listening: Aaron Sprinkle's newest band Fair. I recommend you listen to "Carelessness."
Enjoying: Eggo waffles smothered in syrup. mmm...

Here's a short compendium of quotes I've collected from various theologians regarding a dichotomy made in law and gospel. Not all of the authors, nor their quotes, are always using law and gospel in the same terms, nor are they all being equally scholarly technical. Nevertheless, I'm hoping the reading and cumulative effect has a benefit for you, the reader, and the careful nuances necessary to reading such quotes will be profitable for you.

I should start with a confession. From giants no less than Jonathan Edwards, C. S. Lewis, and Mortimer Adler, I am constantly berated to learn with a pen (or pencil, for the ink-challenged) in my hand. In fact, I recently came across something by Adler (I can't remember where, since I didn't underline it) that emphasized true reading doesn't begin until the reader is interacting, underlining, starring, bulleting, and writing questions in the margin to the author. Well, a brief perusal in my library shows that nearly all my books are still in pristine, un-marked form (except for the random grape juice stain or char/ash, that is). So I confess, despite having the message shoved down my throat, it hasn't yet stuck. You can almost guarantee to find me reading empty-handed.

However, one way in which I made up for this is my Resolved file. It is nothing but a simple Word (.doc) file that I constantly keep on my desktop, and whenever I run into an exceptional (or topical) quote I copy and paste (or type it out) into this file. Its been through several revisions, and actually comprises of four different .doc files that have started (on their own?) through the years. The reason for its title is due to the fact that the first entry I placed on it was Jonathan Edwards' Resolutions. The first word to each of these is, of course, "Resolved, to never..." or "Resolved, every time I...," etc. When I went to save it, MS Word offers as a title the first word(s) of your document. "Resolved" seemed like a good choice, though there is little in directives to myself and more in the line of random quotes. I keep a copy on my Hp iPAQ h5555 and sync it with the desktop when needed.

So without further ado, on to the quotes.

John Calvin (1509-64)
Hence, also, we see the error of those who, in comparing the Law with the Gospel, represent it merely as a comparison between the merit of works, and the gratuitous imputation of righteousness.
This is indeed a contrast not at all to be rejected. For Paul often means by
the term "law" the rule of righteous living by which God requires of us what
is his own, giving us no hope of life unless we completely obey him, and
adding on the other hand a curse if we deviate even in the slightest degree.
This Paul does when he contends that we pleasing to God through grace and
accounted righteous through his pardon, because nowhere is found that
observance of the law for which the reward has been promised. Paul therefore
justly makes contraries of the righteousness of the law and that of the
gospel (*Institutes of the Christian Religion*, 1559; 2.9.4).

This is confirmed by the testimony of Paul, when he observes
that the Gospel holds forth salvation to us, not under the harsh arduous,
and impossible terms on which the Law treats with us, (namely, that those
shall obtain it who fulfill all its demands,) but on terms easy,
expeditious, and readily obtained (*Institutes*, 2.5.12).

But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and
Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works,
with whatever name adorned, are excluded, (Galatians 3:11, 12. For he says
that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing
what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in
believing that Christ died and rose again, (Romans 10:5-9.) Moreover, we
shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of
sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are
different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into
account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith (*Institutes*,
3.11.14).

The Law, he says, is different from faith. Why? Because to
obtain justification by it, works are required; and hence it follows, that
to obtain justification by the Gospel they are not required. From this
statement, it appears that those who are justified by faith are justified
independent of, nay, in the absence of he merit of works, because faith
receives that righteousness which the Gospel bestows. But the Gospel differs
from the Law in this, that it does not confine justification to works, but
places it entirely in the mercy of God (*Institutes*, 3.11.18).

John Calvin For the words of Paul always hold true, that the difference
between the Law and the Gospel lies in this, that the latter does not like
the former promise life under the condition of works, but from faith. What
can be clearer than the antithesis — "The righteousness of the law is in
this wise, The man who doeth these things shall live in them. But the
righteousness which is of faith speaketh thus, Whoso believeth," etc. (
Romans 10:5.) To the same effect is this other passage, "If the inheritance
were of the law, faith would be made void and the promise abolished.
Therefore it is of faith that in respect of grace the promise might be sure
to every one that believeth." ( Romans 4:14.) As to ecclesiastical laws,
they must themselves see to them: we acknowledge one Legislator, to whom it
belongs to deliver the rule of life, as from him we have life (*Antidote to
the Council of Trent*, 1547).

I besides hold that it is without us, because we are
righteous in Christ only. Let them produce evidence from Scripture, if they
have any, to convince us of their doctrine. I, while I have the whole
Scripture supporting me, will now be satisfied with this one reason, viz.,
that when mention is made of the righteousness of works, the law and the
gospel place it in the perfect obedience of the law; and as that nowhere
appears, they leave us no alternative but to flee to Christ alone, that we
may be regarded as righteous in him, not being so in ourselves. Will they
produce to us one passage which declares that begun newness of life is
approved by God as righteousness either in whole or in part? But if they are
devoid of authority, why may we not be permitted to repudiate the figment of
partial justification which they here obtrude? (*Antidote to the Council of
Trent*, 1547).

Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83)
Q.36 What distinguishes law and gospel?
A:*The law contains a covenant of nature begun by God with
men in creation, that is, it is a natural sign to men, and it requires of us perfect
obedience toward God. It promises eternal life to those keeping it, and
threatens eternal punishment to those not keeping it. In fact, the gospel
contains a covenant of grace, that is, one known not at all under nature.
This covenant declares to us fulfillment of its righteousness in Christ,
which the law requires, and our restoration through Christ's Spirit. To
those who believe in him, it freely promises eternal life for Christ's sake
(*Larger Catechism*, Q. 36).

In What Does The Law Differ From The Gospel?
The exposition of this question is necessary for a variety of considerations,
and especially that we may have a proper understanding of the law and the
gospel, to which a knowledge of that in which they differ greatly
contributes. According to the definition of the law, which says, that it
promises rewards to those who render perfect obedience; and that it promises
them freely, inasmuch as no obedience can be meritorious in the sight of
God, it would seem that it does not differ from the gospel, which also
promises eternal life freely. Yet notwithstanding this seeming agreement,
there is a great difference between the law and the gospel. They differ, 1.
As to the mode of revelation peculiar to each. The law is known naturally:
the gospel was divinely revealed after the fall of man. 2. In matter or
doctrine. The law declares the justice of God separately considered: the
gospel declares it in connection with his mercy. The law teaches what we
ought to be in order that we may be saved: the gospel teaches in addition to
this, how we may become such as this law requires, viz: by faith in Christ.
3. In their conditions or promises. The law promises eternal life and all
good things upon the condition of our own and perfect righteousness, and of
obedience in us: the gospel promises the same blessings upon the condition
that we exercise faith in Christ, by which we embrace the obedience which
another, even Christ, has performed in our behalf; or the gospel teaches
that we are justified freely by faith in Christ. With this faith is also
connected, as by an indissoluble bond, the condition of new obedience. 4. In
their effects. The law works wrath, and is the ministration of death: the
gospel is the ministration of life and of the Spirit (Rom. 4:15, 2 Cor. 3:7)
(*Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism*, Q. 92).

Caspar Olevian (1536-87) For this reason the distinction between law and
Gospel is retained. The law does not promise freely, but under the condition
that you keep it completely. And if someone should transgress it once, the
law or legal covenant does not have the promise of the remission of sins. On
the other hand, the Gospel promises freely the remission of sins and life,
not if we keep the law, but for the sake of the Son of God, through faith (*Ad
Romanos Notae*, 148; Geneva, 1579).

Theodore Beza (1534-1605) We divide this Word into two principal parts
or kinds: the one is called the 'Law,' the other the 'Gospel.' For all the
rest can be gathered under the one or other of these twoheadings...Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity (*The Christian Faith*, 1558)

William Perkins (1558-1602) The basic principle in application is to know
whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the
Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law
exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it
up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us
what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to
it....A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent
righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the
sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them.... By
contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and
of faith being fruitful in good works (*The Art of Prophesying*, 1592, repr.
Banner of Truth Trust,1996, 54-55).

Edward Fisher (c.1601-1655) Now, the law is a doctrine partly known by
nature, teaching us that there is a God, and what God is, and what he
requires us to do, binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience,
both internal and external, promising the favour of God, and everlasting
life to all those who yield perfect obedience thereunto, and denouncing the
curse of God and everlasting damnation to all those who are not perfectly
correspondent thereunto. But the gospel is a doctrine revealed from heaven
by the Son of God, presently after the fall of mankind into sin and death,
and afterwards manifested more clearly and fully to the patriarchs and
prophets, to the evangelists and apostles, and by them spread abroad to
others; wherein freedom from sin, from the curse of the law, the wrath of
God, death, and hell, is freely promised for Christ's sake unto all who
truly believe on his name (*The Marrow of Modern Divinity*; 1645, repr.
1978, 337-38. NB: The author of the *Marrow* was designated only as E.F.
Therefore some scholars doubt whether Edward Fisher was actually the
author).

William Twisse (1578-1646) How many ways does the Word of God teach us to
come to the Kingdom of heaven?* *Two. Which are they? The Law and the
Gospel. What says the Law? Do this and live. What says the Gospel? Believe
in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Can we come to the Kingdom of God by
the way of God's Law? No.Why so? Because we cannot do it. Why can we not do
it? Because we are all born in sin. What is it to be none in sin? To be
naturally prone to evil and ...that that which is good. How did it come to
pass that we are all borne in sin? By reason of our first father Adam. Which
way then do you hope to come tot he Kingdom of Heaven? By the Gospel? What
is the Gospel? The glad tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ. To whom is the
glad tidings brought: to the righteousness? No. Why so? For two reasons.
What is the first? Because there is none that is righteous and sin not. What
is the other reason? Because if we were righteous, i.e., without sin we
should have no need of Christ Jesus. To whom then is this glad tiding
brought? To sinners. What, to all sinners? To whom then? To such as believe
and repent. This is the first lesson, to know the right way to the Kingdom
of Heaven.: and this consists in knowing the difference between the Law and
the Gospel. What does the Law require? That we should be without sin. What
does the Gospel require? That we should confess our sins, amend our lives,
and then through faith in Christ we shall be saved. The Law requires what?
Perfect obedience. The Gospel what? Faith and true repentance. (*A Brief
Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine*, 1633).

J.C. Ryle (1816-1900) To be unable to see any difference between law and
gospel, truth an error, Protestantism and Popery, the doctrine of Christ and
the doctrine of man, is a sure proof that we are yet dead in heart, and need
conversion. (*Expository Thoughts on John*, 2:198-199).

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) A new and more powerful proclamation of law
is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little
difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law.
As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are
turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is
reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens... 'Making
Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ'
by one's own efforts-these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's
obedience to God's commands (*What Is Faith?*, 1925).

Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) The Churches of the Reformation from the very
beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of
the Word of God as a means of grace. This distinction was not understood to
be identical with that between the Old and the New Testament, but was
regarded as a distinction that applies to both Testaments. There is law and
gospel in the Old Testament, and there is law and gospel in the New. The law
comprises everything in Scripture which is a revelation of God's will in the
form of command or prohibition, while the gospel embraces everything,whether
it be in the Old Testament or in the New, that pertains to the work of
reconciliation and that proclaims the seeking and redeeming love o God in
Christ Jesus (*Systematic Theology*, [Grand Rapids, 4th edn. 1941], 612).
John Murray (1898-1975) ...the purity and integrity of the gospel
stands or falls with the absoluteness of the antithesis between the function
and potency of law, one the one hand, and the function and potency of grace,
on the other (*Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics* [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957], 186).

For more, please visit Dr. R. Scott Clark's personal website. These quotes were taken from here.

Labels:

|

Monday, February 06, 2006 

BBC Bingo

First, for this to make any sense, go read Purgatorio's piece on Liturgical Bingo.
However, poor Mr. Heinrich alerted us to the fact that he was unable to actually play "Liturgical Bingo" due to the fact that, well, it wouldn't exactly work at his church.

So, never fear, What the Thunder Said... is here, and hopefully we will have just what the good sir needs.

Now, when our most excellent purgatorio is given opportunity (provided he's not leading worship, of course... Leading the congregation may disrupt his ability to hold his card steady) he too can join in on the liturgical bingo fun. For anyone else who may worship at BBC, simply |right click| on the card, "View Image" and |print|. You now are ready to join in the bingo mania. However, you had better be sure to not allow your new past time to affect your ability to catch the fifth example under the third subpoint that forms the bilateral back to the main verse in your notes. Pay attention.

In case you don't have the blessing of worshipping with Mr. Heinrich, here's an explanation behind some of the bingo spaces:

here
here
here
here
here

In all seriousness, I bless God that there are churches where these things are deeply cherished and held to. I pray that more and more, we would as the Church abound in these things and that our joy in God as God would spread to the nations, that the knowledge of the glory of the Lord would cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.


Update: yes, I just realized I am an absolute idiot and forgot to put "Christian Hedonist" on the card...

Labels: , ,

|

Transplanted from the artic blight of Minnesota to the sunny paradise of SoCal, I am attending school and learning to say "dude." I like to think of myself as equal parts surf rash, Batman, heavy metal, Levinas, poetic license, and reformational. Other than creating blund blogs, I enjoy reading, sporting, and socializing with serious and funny people.
My profile



Web Blog

About

Email:

FAQ - Author|Site
Upcoming Events |30 Boxes|
blund Frappr Places
Looking for Poem|Eliot information?

Thunder Sites

Thunder Mobile
Thunder Photo Album
Thunder Media
Thunder Frappr Map
Thunder Directory



Popular and Favorite Posts
Liturgical Bingo: BBC
Updated Video Roundup
Levinas and the Inner Demons

Categories

under construction

Recent Posts


Thunder Comments

under construction

Links & Blogs

Websites
CRTA
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
WSJ Opinion Journal
The Bethlehem Institute
ModernReformation
Westminster Seminary
Liberty Classical Academy
Monergism
ACR Homes
Heritage Charter School
MN Reformation Society
Mobility Today
Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Desiring God
A Puritan's Mind

Blogs Du Jour
Gospel Driven Blog
Building Old School Churches
PastorHacks.Net
Cranach
Keener Living
Cyrene Ministries: Anthony Carter
League of Reformed Bloggers
Westminster Seminary Blog Ring
WSC & Alumni Blog Ring
Voice of the Martyrs

Friends
Syond of Saints
Chris & Steph
Pilgrim in Progress
Josh Carney
Seeing and Savoring
Through A Mirror Dimly
Robert Recio
The Cameroonian Three
Deus Dixit
Morrow's Words
The Normal Christian Blog
The Fire and the Rose
M. Joel Tuininga
Mayor Loebs
The Griffiths Family Blog
One Day in the Life
יהוה צדקנו•
Off the Wire
Claus' Xanga
Sweetened Christological Syllabus
Molesky Tribe
Shane's Blog
Jesse & Kelly Torgerson
Zach & Sarah

blund web comments

under construction
  • more web comments

  • noteworthy posts


    Archives


    Subscribe













    BlogMailr Enabled
    Get Firefox
    Get Thunderbird



    Subscribe in Rojo
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    Add 'What the Thunder Said...' to Newsburst from CNET News.com
    Google Reader
    Add to My AOL
    del.icio.us What the Thunder Said...
    Subscribe with myFeedster
    Furl What the Thunder Said...
    Feed Your Feeds
    Kinja Digest
    Solosub
    MultiRSS
    Rmail
    Rss fwd
    Blogarithm



    Thunder Maps

    Thunder Frappr Map


    ClustrMap Visitor Map Locations of visitors to this page

    Adsense


    Thunder Bookshelf


    by J. R. R. Tolkien


    by Flannery O'Connor


    by Herman Bavinck


    by Peter A. Lillback

    Banners

    For proper use please use
    Get Firefox! Get Thunderbird!



    Purevolume.com

    Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

    Desiring God

    MN Wild Hockey



    Bethlehem

    30 Boxes

    Oceanside URC

    Send Me A Message

    Mission OPC



    Westminster Seminary, California

    Statcounter.com

    Christ PCA Temecula

    MN Twins Baseball



    Clustrmaps.com






    Powered by Blogger







    How does Rowling and the "Harry Potter" series stack up against Tolkien and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy?
    Rowling is the new dreamweaver. She is reigniting literature and fantasy as we know it.
    Tolkien is the undisputed favorite. We have not yet seen a match for his philogistic skill.
    This is apples and oranges. You might as well compare ping pong with Halo. Two different animals.
    Rowling wins, but only by one quidditch goal.
    Tolkien still stands, but only barely.
      
    pollcode.com free polls






    Firefox 2