Movies - My Favorite 10

Well, from start to finish it only took me 6 weeks to go through this process, but I have finally and painstakingly narrowed my list of movies down to a list of 10 favorites.  Note that I didn't claim that these are the top 10 movies ever made, or that these are the top 10 best movies of all time—these are (at this moment in time) my top 10 favorite movies in order of release date.  So without further a due:

Lawrence of Arabia 1962

The Godfather 1972

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back 1980

Raiders of the Lost Ark 1981

Dune 1984

Dead Man Walking January 12, 1995

Braveheart May 24, 1995

The Matrix 1999

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring 2001

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 2004

Hermeneutical Presuppositions- A Necessary Balance

In my recent studies on hermeneutics I ran across these words by James White in the text of his work, "The Newness of the New Covenant". They seem to clearly state a principle hermeneutic that would likely help in balancing us between (or above) the errors of the hyper-literalization and over-spiritualization of the texts we attempt to interpret.

"When a consistent interpretation of the passage is at hand that requires no disruption of the flow of thought, we need a truly compelling reason to look for anything other than the plainest meaning of the words as they would have been read by the original audience."

Calvin on The Newness of the New Covenant - An Answer to My Question

In my last post I questioned Calvin's view of regeneration in the Old Covenant. As I read further in his comments on Jeremiah 31:31-34, I found this.

" A question may however be here moved, Was the grace of regeneration wanting to the Fathers under the Law? But this is quite preposterous. What, then, is meant when God denies here that the Law was written on the heart before the coming of Christ? To this I answer, that the Fathers, who were formerly regenerated, obtained this favor through Christ, so that we may say, that it was as it were transferred to them from another source. The power then to penetrate into the heart was not inherent in the Law, but it was a benefit transferred to the Law from the Gospel. This is one thing. Then we know that this grace of God was rare and little known under the Law; but that under the Gospel the gifts of the Spirit have been more abundantly poured forth, and that God has dealt more bountifully with his Church. But still the main thing is, to consider what the Law of itself is, and what is peculiar to the Gospel, especially when a comparison is made between the Law and the Gospel. For when this comparison ceases, this cannot be properly applied to the Law; but with regard to the Gospel it is said, that the Law is that of the letter, as it is called elsewhere, (Rom. 7:6) and this also is the reason why Paul calls it the letter in 2 Cor. 3:6, “the letter killeth,” etc. By “letter” he means not what Origen foolishly explained, for he perverted that passage as he did almost the whole Scripture: Paul does not mean there the simple and plain sense of the Law; for he calls it the letter for another reason, because it only sets before the eyes of men what is right, and sounds it also in their ears. And the word letter refers to what is written, as though he had said, The Law was written on stones, and was therefore a letter. But the Gospel — what is it? It is spirit, that is, God not only addresses his word to the ears of men and sets it before their eyes, but he also inwardly teaches their hearts and minds. This is then the solution of the question: the Prophet speaks of the Law in itself, as apart from the Gospel, for the Law then is dead and destitute of the Spirit of regeneration."

Calvin on The Newness of the New Covenant

In my absence I have continued to edit my paper on the contrast and comparison of Dispensationalism with Covenant Theology. In my study on Jeremiah 31:31-34, I came across this interesting paragraph by Calvin.

"As then God has added nothing to the Law as to the substance of the doctrine, we must come, as I have already said, to the form, as Christ was not as yet manifested: God made a new covenant, when he accomplished through his Son whatever had been shadowed forth under the Law. For the sacrifices could not of themselves pacify God, as it is well known, and whatever the Law taught respecting expiation was of itself useless and of no importance. The new covenant then was made when Christ appeared with water and blood, and really fulfilled what God had exhibited under types, so that the faithful might have some taste of salvation. But the coming of Christ would not have been sufficient, had not regeneration by the Holy Spirit been added. It was, then, in some respects, a new thing, that God regenerated the faithful by his Spirit, so that it became not only a doctrine as to the letter, but also efficacious, which not only strikes the ear, but penetrates into the heart, and really forms us for the service of God. The outward mode of teaching was also new, as it is evident to all; for when we compare the Law with the Gospel, we find that God speaks to us now openly, as it were face to face, and not under a veil, as Paul teaches us, when speaking of Moses, who put on a veil when he went forth to address the people in God’s name. (2 Cor. 3:13) It is not so, says Paul, under the Gospel, but the veil is removed, and God in the face of Christ presents himself to be seen by us. This, then, is the reason why the Prophet calls it a new covenant"

While it is entirely possible that I have misunderstood Calvin, I do have a few questions. It seems that he is saying that, "regeneration by the Holy Spirit" is one of the new things in the New Covenant, hence the word, "added". Perhaps I have misread him here because he goes on to say, "God speaks to us now openly, as it were face to face, and not under a veil, as Paul teaches us, when speaking of Moses, who put on a veil when he went forth to address the people in God’s name. It is not so, says Paul, under the Gospel, but the veil is removed, and God in the face of Christ presents himself to be seen by us. This, then, is the reason why the Prophet calls it a new covenant".

If anyone has any insight here, I would greatly appreciate their advice.

Analogia de Haeresis - The Correct Analogy

The Man makes a statue that bears His resemblance.  The statue trips over his own shadow and breaks into pieces when he hits the ground.  The Man makes a statue which He can inhabit, and enters the room where the statue resides; He then remakes the statue and he lives with The Man forever.

Bryson Alyster Beckley Payton

Melissa and I finally named our third son, Bryson Alyster Beckley Payton. The significance, you ask...

Bryson literally means, "son of Bryce"; and Bryce means Britton, so Bryson could be said to mean, "son of Britton". The particular meaning of this name bore no significance, so you could say that it holds aesthetic significance alone. "Alyster" is one of the many spellings of the name, and I understand its Greek root to mean "a man's defender". So, bearing in mind its meaning in Greek, the significance of this name is its meaning, something to the effect that Christ is our defender. God in Christ, came and faced His own wrath against sin and sinners, in the place of all those who believe. And Beckley West Virginia is where my dad's mother was born, so along with an attraction to the name based on its aesthetics, it also has family significance. Below are a few photos I hope you all enjoy.

Bryson Payton

Bryson Payton was born: 4lbs 10 oz and 18.9" long on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009.