Lose the Title "Devil" and the Rays Are in the World Series and Other Stuff from Around the Web
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 09:32AM 
This shouldn't come as a surprise, but it does. Some evangelicals have noticed that once the Tampa Bay "Devil Rays" dropped the word "Devil" from their team name, immediately they went on to play in the World Series. Those of us whose favorite teams in the American League East played the Rays all season long, know that they are in the World Series because they got great starting pitching, they have several future superstars (Evan Longoria comes to mind), and because their manager, Joe Maddon, did a great job with all that young talent. And then both the Yanks and Red Sox looked flat, old, and were hit hard with injuries. I don't think taking the name "Devil" out of their team name had much to do with the team's remarkable success. Click here: The Associated Press: A heavenly result for Devil-less Tampa Bay Rays
I need to get out more. Apparently, this is going on in my own backyard and I knew nothing about it. There is a gigantic $20 million Jain temple being built in Buena Park, a city of 70K, and my life-long hometown. The story made the Washington Times, and yet, I've never even seen the thing. I don't even know where it is! I'm going to go and check it out. Buena Park's claim to fame is being the Spanglish capitol of the United States, the home of Knott's Berry Farm, and is filled with countless post World-War Two strip malls and housing tracts. Hardly the place to build a $20 million temple. Click here: Washington Times - Jain faith celebrated
You gotta love this one. T. D. Jakes--you know, the rather large Word of Faith guy with the very busy tailor (Jakes wears the weirdest cut of suit I've ever seen)--cancelled a trip to Africa because some mysterious disease broke out. Obviously, this begs the question, "why didn't Jakes take authority over that disease and then make the trip anyway?" Amazing . . . Click here: Insight News | TD Jakes calls off Africa trip fearing disease
Finally, Episcopalian self-lampooning continues with this sorry news story. Communion for everyone! The argument is that since Jesus ate with tax-collectors and sinners, left-wing Episcopal priests feel compelled to serve the Lord's Supper to anyone who attends their services, professing Christians or not. Since many in the ECUSA openly mock the gospel, why shouldn't they profane the Supper as well. I think I'd go back and read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 if I were you. You might have missed something important. Click here: Who is worthy to receive? - The Boston Globe
Reader Comments (21)
As far the elimination of the Devil from their name- the only thing I can say is look at what happened to the Cubs this year. Perhaps the devil does has something to do with it. I am just kidding of course but you never know what kind of psychology is running around in players heads. Baseball is such a mental game. Curses and such things is what makes the game so entertaining.
You guys got to check out what is going on at Chris Rosebroughs website- extremetheology.com. Talk about doctrinal confusion in the Church- check out the comments section about the reveal conference at Willow Creek and Chris's critique of John Ortberg's talk their. Talk about solid doctrine needing to unify Christians. Non-reformational Church's are in utter doctrinal confusion.
Isnt extreme theology a Lutheran site. Ive read some reformed bashing on there before and stopped visiting. One guy said Calvin was a gnostic.
And as for the Rays...reminds me of a former member who was positively offended that a product could be named the Dirt Devil. Sigh.
Yes it is a Lutheran site. If somebody said Calvin is a Gnostic on the site then he is an idiot. I am Lutheran and I draw a lot from Calvin (I have read most of the Institutes) and other Reformed writers. I love reading B.B. Warfield and some of the other great Reformed theologians. I have read a lot of Michael Horton's books and I deeply enjoy all of Kim Riddlebargers books and materials. Michael Horton's Putting Amazing Back Into Grace and Kim Riddlebargers booklet on his commentary on Romans saved my Christian life.
When I struggle with sin in my life I run to Luther not Calvin. That is the only reason I am a Lutheran and not a Calvinist. Luther's books just permeate grace and forgiveness (especially Luther's commentary on Galatians which I have read about 5 times) and seem to restore me back to a place where I can try to fulfill God's will in my life in my vocational callings. Plus I am kind of partial to Rod Rosenbladt- he always fills me with hope because I have a tendency to easily fall into despair. I have been burned and hurt by some people at some Reformed Church's (not that it was not partially my fault) too. I never quite feel that I am measuring up to what I should be in my Christian life. I still struggle with this all the time.
I suppose some Lutheran's do bash Calvin although I have not seen that on the site. I certainly have heard some Calvinists bash Lutherans. We can disagree on certain doctrinal issues but still work together- bashing probably steps over the line and needs to be corrected. I gain a lot by reading cross-denominationally. I think we all need to dialog with others who do not share our same doctrinal convictions.
First let me say - I love Australian Shepherds!
That is so very ironic regarding T.D. Jakes and I wholeheartedly agree with your point.
Justin Peters gives an excellent critique on the Word of Faith movement and presents it in a seminar entitled, A Call for Discernment." He gives an overview of it at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and it can be seen on his web site: http://www.justinpeters.org
Peters gave the seminar in its entirety at my church and comes highly recommended by my pastor, Dr. John MacArthur.
He's been on Al Mohler's show and a host of others, but it would be so great to hear him on your show!
Thanks for the great comments. I agree. Also I would love to dialogue further. I have a few questions I would like answered regarding Lutheranism. Here is my email. thefloridabrowns@hotmail.com I have long been fascinated by confessional Lutheranism-theri empasis on Christ, grace , and their Divine Service is marvelous. My only concern is my wife and I are confused about baptismal regeneration and how that is compatible with justification by faith alone. Ive heard Lutherans believe infants have faith and repent(although not consciously) I find that near nonsensical(no offense mind you) even in the face of gospel texts about brephos which believe in Christ (Lk 18,etc) But Iam equally dissatisfied with every other protestants interpretation of Rom 6, Gal 3, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38,etc The scriptures seem replete with blatant attributions of the efficacy of baptism. Ive read every reformed view and find them more eisegetical rather than honestly dealing with the text. But the idea of giving up on faith alone is repugnant to the gospel in my view and I want to hear a Lutherans view on how baptismal regeneration does not contradict faith alone. I was justified by faith 6 months before I was baptised-does that mean I want saved until I was baptised?Especially in light of 1 cor 1:14- where Paul places a dichotomy between the power of the kerygma the preached gospel against the administration of the sacrament of baptism. I mean no arguement at all-Iam looking for a biblical answer to help us in our sincere interest in Lutheranism. Feel free to email me
blessings in His grace
I could give you my answer but I think I will refer you to Rod Rosenbladts site- newreformationpress.org. He has an excellent book on the subject available their. I have not been a Lutheran for that long- my road to the reformation has been a long and crooked journey. I love the Lutheran Church I go to though. It stirs my heart to watch the Pastor hold up the Cup and then distribute the Supper to all the members of the Church- I almost come to tears each time he does it. I am tearing up now just thinking about it. We do it every Sunday- it is a great blessing and one which has stirred a passion for Christ in my heart again. Thank God for his loving grace and His unwillingness to let us go through the listening and hearing of the Gospel. I would be lost and very prone to wander without the Gospel and the Supper.
That website is newreformationpress.com not .org. The name of the book is called Scriptural Baptism. Rod also has a short booklet by Luther with some commentary on his doctrinal positions on baptism. I would be happy to keep in contact with you. My website is johny382100@yahoo.com. I also have a website on myspace- www.myspace.com/lutherman3821- I got a site on myspace in order to keep a watch on my kids- even though it embarrasses the heck out of them. I blog on the site with the hope that they will actually read the stuff- unfortunately, I do not think they do. They are all grown up and away from home now.
I'm a WELS Lutheran. Here are some scriptures for baptismal regeneration. The LCMS uses the same scriptures.
First of all, there is no age for baptism indicated in the Bible. God creates faith in little babies (Luke 18:15-17 and Luke 1:41-44), just as he does in adults (Phil. 1:29). When did the age of accountability actually occur? In Psalm 51:5, David says that he was conceived in sin. In Ephesians, Paul says that we are by nature "children of wrath." In Romans 5, Paul talks about all of us as having original sin in Adam.
God uses the Word of God and baptism to save. God also uses the Word of God without baptism to save. God does not use baptism without the Word of God to save. (Luther calls baptismal water without the the Word of God, dead water.)
In other words, God uses baptism as a means to create faith for salvation.
Children are included in the words "all nations" (Matt 28:19). Peter says in Acts 2:39 in speaking of baptism, "the promise is for you and your children.
God combines the Word of God and Holy Baptism in John 3:5. Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God's command and combined with God's Word, which saves.
1 Peter 3:20 & 21 says this, "God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you."
Remember, baptism is not something that we do for God. It is something that God does for us. God is the active party in baptism, not us!
As Lutherans, we view baptism and communion as sacraments, where we receive the forgiveness of our sins.
We view the Holy Spirit as being in the sacraments, not along side of them (the Reformed view).
I hope this help's some. I was in a hurry, or I would have done a better job of writing this.
Best of wishes in your studies of Lutheran Theology. I'm an elder in a Lutheran church, and I can tell you, there is nothing like it. It is the most Biblical of all Christian denominations, and you'll never get bored in learning all of it.
I love reading the Book of Concord, Luther's catechism's etc. I am a HUGE fan of Dr. Martin Luther. I read all I can of Luther's works and writings etc. Needless to say, It will take a couple of lifetimes to read it all. (Ask the great Dr. Rod Rosenbladt!)
John Yeazel:
I enjoy your and Zrim's blogs.
Dr. (Pastor) Kim Riddlebarger is also great, and is awesome!
How do you start reforming a church that currently practices open communion?
We have people that have been coming to our church for six months now, and our pastor still will not let them take communion until they are in agreement in all points of doctrine.
If a pastor dares to go against our bylaws in this subject matter, he will be FIRED!
All heretics (pastors) will be booted out!
I hope you are not suggesting that guests in a church need to take a written and oral exam before they take communion. Isn't the correct approach to state that communion is for believers in Jesus Christ who have accepted him as their Savior and then to leave it up to the individual as to whether or not he/she should take communion?
I still remember visiting a Lutheran church once while trying to find a place to worship and being swarmed by people telling me I was not to take communion under any circumstance until approved by the Pastor (sometime down the road). As a relatively new believer at the time I cannot tell you what a bad taste this left in my mouth. I never went back there again.
If you visit our church, you will not be allowed to take communion until you have spoken to the pastor.
Any Lutheran church that allows you to take communion without the full understanding and total agreement of Lutheran communion, and all matters of doctrine, is going against its bylaws. (Except the ELCA, which is totally heretical.)
In the WELS, and ELS, your Lutheran denomination has to be in complete agreement with our denominations in order for you to be allowed to commune at our altars.
We are in church fellowship with 21 other Lutheran church bodies. Our pastors dare not cross the line of administering the sacraments to anyone other than our members, or the other 21 CELC member bodies around the world.
We feel, that letting our guard down in this area, will begin to ruin our entire denominations. (Pls. note the ELCA.)
Our doctrine is almost the same as the LCMS doctrine, except we enforce our bylaws.
There are some darn good LCMS conservative pastors. I can only hope and pray that (for the good of all Lutherans), the liberals (HERETICS) in the LCMS will get kicked out.
All Lutheran church bodies need to be confessional. We don't need to be like all the other churches. Lutherans have the most Biblical, well thought out theology.
It is time for all Lutherans to adhere to our confessions, and to clean house! Luther would not have it any other way.
If people get offended by this position, too bad. The truth is way to important to compromise.
I hear you, but if that is the orthodox Lutheran view I think it is way too rigid and beyond what the Scripture warrants. To a non-lutheran (I go to a Baptist church), it appears to be elevating rules of men over what Scripture warrants, it seems to require men to decide "who will ascend into heaven" which I believe we are not to do, and it may result in pulling up wheat with tares.