Jason M. Steffens's Blog, page 2
August 6, 2016
"“Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever — except the shape of your own character." in Compendium Miscellanea
“Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever — except the shape of your own character. Vote as if the public consequences of your action weigh nothing next to the private consequences. The country will go whither it will go, when all the votes are counted. What should matter the most to you is whither you will go, on and after this November’s election day.”
Those running for election are not entitled to my vote. They earn it, or they do not. On election day, the ballot box does not record me holding my nose; it simply records my support. Some candidates whose names are on the ballot are not worth it, and in some elections none are. If I were to support their lack of decency and fitness, my own character will have been adversely affected.
“Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever — except the shape of your own character. was originally published in Compendium Miscellanea on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
July 30, 2016
Paul’s Sermon on Mars Hill to the Athenians
The Apostle Paul arrived in Athens, and while waiting for Silas and Timotheus to rejoin him, he saw in the city a people “wholly” given to idolatry, and his spirit was stirred. (Acts 17:15-16.)
The idolatries we see most today are ones of materialism (focused on things), entertainment (focused on pleasures), or humanism (focused on self-empowerment). This is not far from the idolatries of the Epicureans and Stoics that Paul encountered in Athens.
As a result of seeing this pervasive idolatry, Paul began to dispute with spiritual leaders (e.g., the Jews in the synagogue), devout lay people, and anyone who would listen to him in public areas. (v. 17.) Thus, even while waiting for others in a city that was only a temporary home, Paul worked, spreading the Gospel. Everything he did in Athens was apparently alone, as Silas and Timotheus didn’t join him again until after he departed Athens and arrived in Corinth. (Acts 18:5.)
Once the debating began, there were others willing to engage him. The philosophers of the Epicureans and the Stoicks “encountered him” and then “took him” to Areopagus, what the Romans referred to as Mars Hill. Mars Hill was a rocky height to the west of the Acropolis, sometimes used as a open air council or court of justice. It doesn’t appear that they took him by force. There are no physical threats involved in this passage. They wanted him to explain himself (“may we know?”).
According to notes on these passages by C.I. Scofield and John Wesley, the Epicureans were disciples of Epicurus, B.C. 342–271, “who abandoned as hopeless the search by reason for pure truth, seeking instead true pleasure through experience.” The Epicureans “entirely denied a providence, and held the world to be the effect of mere chance; asserting sensual pleasure to be man’s chief good, and that the soul and body died together.” The Stoics were disciples of Zeno, B.C. 280, and Chrysippus, B.C. 240. They employed a philosophy “founded on human self-sufficiency, inculcated stern self-repression, the solidarily of the race, and the unity of Deity.” The Stoics “held that matter was eternal; that all things were governed by irresistible fate; that virtue was its own sufficient reward, and vice its own sufficient punishment.”
Though the Epicureans and the Stoics had different outlooks, for both the biggest stumbling block to Christianity was the resurrection of Jesus. (v. 18.)
It doesn’t appear that they took Paul by force. The Book of Acts doesn’t record physical threats against him here. The philosophers wanted him to explain himself. “May we know?” they asked him, for what he was saying was “new” and “strange.” (vv. 19–20.) There were people in Athens who devoted their lives to hearing and telling “new” things. (v. 21.) Contrast the telling and hearing of the Athenians with the instruction to give attendance to reading and meditation in 1 Timothy 4:13–15.
“It is true that good company is of great use to a man, and will polish one that has laid a good foundation in study; but that knowledge will be very flashy and superficial which is got by conversation only.” — Matthew HenryPaul’s Sermon (Acts 17:22–31)
The Athenians needed to be made to see that what they believed lacked a true foundation before they would accept Paul’s teaching. To do this, Paul does not rely on subtlety—He accuses them of being “too superstitious” and “ignorant.” (vv. 22–23.)
He had seen an alter near where the Athenians were doing some kind of devotion. The alter had the inscription “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.” The Athenians did not know God, but Paul did, and so Paul declares Him to the Athenians in order make God known to them. (v. 23.) In referencing the altar and its inscription, Paul effectively says that what he has to say is not “new,” for God and His plan of judgment and salvation has always been.
Paul states that God made everything. Everything we have comes from Him. We cannot bind Him or house Him. He has no need of us and we need everything from Him. We are utterly dependent on Him and He is utterly independent of us. Our life and our breath comes from Him. In other words, we originally exist because of Him and we continue to exist only because of Him. (vv. 24–25; see also 1 Kings 8:27–29 and Is. 66:1–2.)
“I breathe this moment: the next is not in my power” — John Wesley
This was a refutation of the Stoics’ pantheism, which held that God is the world (i.e., “Nature”), and of their belief in human self-sufficiency.
Paul proceeds to note that God made all of us of “one blood.” (v. 26.) Though there are many tribes and nations, there is only one race. The Bible nowhere divides us into different races. Racial division is a man-made construct.
We are bound by God’s determination of timing and location. We were made to dwell on the face of the earth and to haply seek and find the Lord. The task of seeking Him is not difficult, for though He is the sovereign creator of the universe, He is not far from us. We should seek Him because it is in Him that we have life, movement, and our whole being. (vv. 26–28.)
Even Athenian poets had recognized that we must come from a Creator, as one of them had written that “we are also his offspring.” (v. 28; cf. Rom. 1.) (Note that Paul was familiar with their writers. Scholarly pursuits can be of benefit in presenting the Gospel.) John Wesley wrote concerning verse 28:
Aratus, whose words these are, was an Athenian, who lived almost three hundred years before this time. They are likewise to be found, with the alteration of one letter only, in the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter or the supreme being, one of the purest and finest pieces of natural religion in the whole world of Pagan antiquity.
If God created us, if we are his “offspring” (He did and we are), it becomes silly — logically, philosophically, whatever — to make Him like unto something created by man, such as that graven out of gold, silver, or stone. (v. 29.)
God had been long suffering to the Athenians, but the call to repentance was now at hand. (v. 30; see also 14:16–17.) Paul not only declared the one true God to the Athenians, but he called them to repentance, a call for them to turn from their beliefs unto God. Knowledge is not enough. There must be repentance. The call to repentance is a refutation of the Stoics’ belief in irresistible fate. Repentance can only be necessary when our lives are not pre-determined.
There is a day that God knows that we do not (v. 26) when He will judge the world. The judgment will be by Jesus. We have confirmation that Jesus was ordained for that task by His resurrection. (v. 31.) In speaking of judgment, recall where Paul is saying this—a place sometimes used as a court of justice.
The Aftermath (Acts 17:32–34)The reactions to Paul were typical of the various reactions to any presentation of the Gospel:
some mockedsome said they would consider ita few believed (only two are mentioned by name, though there were others) (v. 34); by Dionysius being called “the Areopagite,” he may have been one of the judgesThis is a demonstration of the positive influence we can have on those around us.
Again, the biggest stumbling block, mentally, was the resurrection of the dead, here not just Jesus’s resurrection, but ours as well. (v. 32.) In fact, it appears in verse 32 that the mention of the resurrection of the dead led to an interruption of Paul. The pride of reason got in their way of belief.
ConclusionLooking back over the sermon, we see that Paul in ten verses, a matter of minutes, goes from the beginning to the end, explaining the nature of both God and man, stating the only hope for man, and the confirmation of that hope, refuting both the Epicurean and the Stoic.
Adapted from an adult Sunday School lesson I taught at Twin Pines Baptist Church in 2014
Cover photo — “Areopagus from the Acropolis” — via Flickr user AJ Alfieri-Crispin under a Creative Commons license .
Paul’s Sermon on Mars Hill to the Athenians was originally published in Antioch Road on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
"Paul’s Sermon on Mars Hill to the Athenians" in Antioch Road
The Apostle Paul arrived in Athens, and while waiting for Silas and Timotheus to rejoin him, he saw in the city a people “wholly” given to idolatry, and his spirit was stirred. (Acts 17:15-16.)
The idolatries we see most today are ones of materialism (focused on things), entertainment (focused on pleasures), or humanism (focused on self-empowerment). This is not far from the idolatries of the Epicureans and Stoics that Paul encountered in Athens.
As a result of seeing this pervasive idolatry, Paul began to dispute with spiritual leaders (e.g., the Jews in the synagogue), devout lay people, and anyone who would listen to him in public areas. (v. 17.) Thus, even while waiting for others in a city that was only a temporary home, Paul worked, spreading the Gospel. Everything he did in Athens was apparently alone, as Silas and Timotheus didn’t join him again until after he departed Athens and arrived in Corinth. (Acts 18:5.)
Once the debating began, there were others willing to engage him. The philosophers of the Epicureans and the Stoicks “encountered him” and then “took him” to Areopagus, what the Romans referred to as Mars Hill. Mars Hill was a rocky height to the west of the Acropolis, sometimes used as a open air council or court of justice. It doesn’t appear that they took him by force. There are no physical threats involved in this passage. They wanted him to explain himself (“may we know?”).
According to notes on these passages by C.I. Scofield and John Wesley, the Epicureans were disciples of Epicurus, B.C. 342–271, “who abandoned as hopeless the search by reason for pure truth, seeking instead true pleasure through experience.” The Epicureans “entirely denied a providence, and held the world to be the effect of mere chance; asserting sensual pleasure to be man’s chief good, and that the soul and body died together.” The Stoics were disciples of Zeno, B.C. 280, and Chrysippus, B.C. 240. They employed a philosophy “founded on human self-sufficiency, inculcated stern self-repression, the solidarily of the race, and the unity of Deity.” The Stoics “held that matter was eternal; that all things were governed by irresistible fate; that virtue was its own sufficient reward, and vice its own sufficient punishment.”
Though the Epicureans and the Stoics had different outlooks, for both the biggest stumbling block to Christianity was the resurrection of Jesus. (v. 18.)
It doesn’t appear that they took Paul by force. The Book of Acts doesn’t record physical threats against him here. The philosophers wanted him to explain himself. “May we know?” they asked him, for what he was saying was “new” and “strange.” (vv. 19–20.) There were people in Athens who devoted their lives to hearing and telling “new” things. (v. 21.) Contrast the telling and hearing of the Athenians with the instruction to give attendance to reading and meditation in 1 Timothy 4:13–15.
“It is true that good company is of great use to a man, and will polish one that has laid a good foundation in study; but that knowledge will be very flashy and superficial which is got by conversation only.” — Matthew HenryPaul’s Sermon (Acts 17:22–31)
The Athenians needed to be made to see that what they believed lacked a true foundation before they would accept Paul’s teaching. To do this, Paul does not rely on subtlety—He accuses them of being “too superstitious” and “ignorant.” (vv. 22–23.)
He had seen an alter near where the Athenians were doing some kind of devotion. The alter had the inscription “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.” The Athenians did not know God, but Paul did, and so Paul declares Him to the Athenians in order make God known to them. (v. 23.) In referencing the altar and its inscription, Paul effectively says that what he has to say is not “new,” for God and His plan of judgment and salvation has always been.
Paul states that God made everything. Everything we have comes from Him. We cannot bind Him or house Him. He has no need of us and we need everything from Him. We are utterly dependent on Him and He is utterly independent of us. Our life and our breath comes from Him. In other words, we originally exist because of Him and we continue to exist only because of Him. (vv. 24–25; see also 1 Kings 8:27–29 and Is. 66:1–2.)
“I breathe this moment: the next is not in my power” — John Wesley
This was a refutation of the Stoics’ pantheism, which held that God is the world (i.e., “Nature”), and of their belief in human self-sufficiency.
Paul proceeds to note that God made all of us of “one blood.” (v. 26.) Though there are many tribes and nations, there is only one race. The Bible nowhere divides us into different races. Racial division is a man-made construct.
We are bound by God’s determination of timing and location. We were made to dwell on the face of the earth and to haply seek and find the Lord. The task of seeking Him is not difficult, for though He is the sovereign creator of the universe, He is not far from us. We should seek Him because it is in Him that we have life, movement, and our whole being. (vv. 26–28.)
Even Athenian poets had recognized that we must come from a Creator, as one of them had written that “we are also his offspring.” (v. 28; cf. Rom. 1.) (Note that Paul was familiar with their writers. Scholarly pursuits can be of benefit in presenting the Gospel.) John Wesley wrote concerning verse 28:
Aratus, whose words these are, was an Athenian, who lived almost three hundred years before this time. They are likewise to be found, with the alteration of one letter only, in the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter or the supreme being, one of the purest and finest pieces of natural religion in the whole world of Pagan antiquity.
If God created us, if we are his “offspring” (He did and we are), it becomes silly — logically, philosophically, whatever — to make Him like unto something created by man, such as that graven out of gold, silver, or stone. (v. 29.)
God had been long suffering to the Athenians, but the call to repentance was now at hand. (v. 30; see also 14:16–17.) Paul not only declared the one true God to the Athenians, but he called them to repentance, a call for them to turn from their beliefs unto God. Knowledge is not enough. There must be repentance. The call to repentance is a refutation of the Stoics’ belief in irresistible fate. Repentance can only be necessary when our lives are not pre-determined.
There is a day that God knows that we do not (v. 26) when He will judge the world. The judgment will be by Jesus. We have confirmation that Jesus was ordained for that task by His resurrection. (v. 31.) In speaking of judgment, recall where Paul is saying this—a place sometimes used as a court of justice.
The Aftermath (Acts 17:32–34)The reactions to Paul were typical of the various reactions to any presentation of the Gospel:
some mockedsome said they would consider ita few believed (only two are mentioned by name, though there were others) (v. 34); by Dionysius being called “the Areopagite,” he may have been one of the judgesThis is a demonstration of the positive influence we can have on those around us.
Again, the biggest stumbling block, mentally, was the resurrection of the dead, here not just Jesus’s resurrection, but ours as well. (v. 32.) In fact, it appears in verse 32 that the mention of the resurrection of the dead led to an interruption of Paul. The pride of reason got in their way of belief.
ConclusionLooking back over the sermon, we see that Paul in ten verses, a matter of minutes, goes from the beginning to the end, explaining the nature of both God and man, stating the only hope for man, and the confirmation of that hope, refuting both the Epicurean and the Stoic.
Adapted from an adult Sunday School lesson I taught at Twin Pines Baptist Church in 2014
Cover photo — “Areopagus from the Acropolis” — via Flickr user AJ Alfieri-Crispin under a Creative Commons license .
Paul’s Sermon on Mars Hill to the Athenians was originally published in Antioch Road on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
July 20, 2016
If our country cannot survive a Hillary Clinton presidency, it cannot survive a Donald Trump one.
If our country cannot survive a Hillary Clinton presidency, it cannot survive a Donald Trump one. Neither are capable of stemming our cultural decline, or interested in doing so. We rise and fall on the basis of our individual choices, the strength or breakdown of traditional families, and the Biblical adherence or apostasy of our churches. The presidency is important, yes—but not so much that it should cause us to support a lying, intellectually incurious, indecent man who refuses to recognize the limits of the office he seeks. Posterity demands more.
If our country cannot survive a Hillary Clinton presidency, it cannot survive a Donald Trump one. was originally published in Compendium Miscellanea on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
"If our country cannot survive a Hillary Clinton presidency, it cannot survive a Donald Trump one." in Compendium Miscellanea
If our country cannot survive a Hillary Clinton presidency, it cannot survive a Donald Trump one. Neither are capable of stemming our cultural decline, or interested in doing so. We rise and fall on the basis of our individual choices, the strength or breakdown of traditional families, and the Biblical adherence or apostasy of our churches. The presidency is important, yes—but not so much that it should cause us to support a lying, intellectually incurious, indecent man who refuses to recognize the limits of the office he seeks. Posterity demands more.
If our country cannot survive a Hillary Clinton presidency, it cannot survive a Donald Trump one. was originally published in Compendium Miscellanea on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
May 5, 2016
#NeverTrump #NeverHillary #NeverTyranny
I will not stand before God, my wife, or my children and say I cast a vote for a person who:
supports the taking of the lives of preborn children, including by supporting our nation’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood;disparages women as women who disagree with him/her;serially lies;is serially malleable; andrefuses to recognize the limits of the office they seek.These statements apply equally to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. As bad as Hillary Clinton’s worldview is for this country, Trump’s Mussolini-like “man of action” statements, character flaws, and misogyny are on a whole other plane from any other major party candidate we’ve seen.
In every Trump vs. Hillary discussion, there’s someone who says, “Not voting for Trump is the same as a vote for Hillary Clinton.” On every level — factually, mathematically, electorally, morally — that is a false statement.
Given the choice between two evils, I choose neither, and will not be blamed for either.
I am not voting for Donald Trump, anyone like him, or anyone who supports him or anyone like him.
Further reading: Senator Ben Sasse : “An Open Letter to Majority America”Denny Burk: “Why social conservatives should support #NeverTrump”David French: “No, Trump Isn’t Actually Better than Hillary”Matt Labash: “Nine Tales of Trump at His Trumpiest”Update (7/15/2016): Further reading:Team #NeverTrump: “The Case Against Donald Trump”Update (7/29/2016): Further reading:David French: “Never Trump, Now More than Ever”Update (8/5/2016): Further reading:Matthew J. Franck: “A Vote’s Consequences and a Voter’s Conscience”Update (10/6/2016): Further reading: Matthew Anderson : “Should evangelicals vote for Clinton or Trump? No.”
#NeverTrump #NeverHillary #NeverTyranny was originally published in Compendium Miscellanea on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
"#NeverTrump #NeverHillary #NeverTyranny" in Compendium Miscellanea
I will not stand before God, my wife, or my children and say I cast a vote for a person who:
supports the taking of the lives of preborn children, including by supporting our nation’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood;disparages women as women who disagree with him/her;serially lies;is serially malleable; andrefuses to recognize the limits of the office they seek.These statements apply equally to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. As bad as Hillary Clinton’s worldview is for this country, Trump’s Mussolini-like “man of action” statements, character flaws, and misogyny are on a whole other plane from any other major party candidate we’ve seen.
In every Trump vs. Hillary discussion, there’s someone who says, “Not voting for Trump is the same as a vote for Hillary Clinton.” On every level — factually, mathematically, electorally, morally — that is a false statement.
Given the choice between two evils, I choose neither, and will not be blamed for either.
I am not voting for Donald Trump, anyone like him, or anyone who supports him or anyone like him.
Further reading: Senator Ben Sasse : “An Open Letter to Majority America”Denny Burk: “Why social conservatives should support #NeverTrump”David French: “No, Trump Isn’t Actually Better than Hillary”Matt Labash: “Nine Tales of Trump at His Trumpiest”Update (7/15/2016): Further reading:Team #NeverTrump: “The Case Against Donald Trump”Update (7/29/2016): Further reading:David French: “Never Trump, Now More than Ever”Update (8/5/2016): Further reading:Matthew J. Franck: “A Vote’s Consequences and a Voter’s Conscience”#NeverTrump #NeverHillary #NeverTyranny was originally published in Compendium Miscellanea on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
February 22, 2016
Trump may take down the GOP, yes …
This may be true, and if Donald Trump is the nominee, the Republican Party will not have my vote in the general election for President; I will find a third-party candidate.
But much of the rest of your analysis is misguided about both causes and symptoms, highlighted by calling Ted Cruz “Trump-lite.” Cruz has lived his professional life as a strict constitutionalist; Trump is a “confidence man” who has no intention of letting the constitutional limits of presidential power get in his way. It’s impossible to conflate the two outside of blind political hackery.
The thing is—There is still time for the Republican Party to stop Trump’s destruction. Of the Democrats, what good options are open to them when the only two presidential candidates are (1) someone who, at best, carelessly put the lives of human assets in danger and (2) someone who doesn’t understand basic economics?
Trump may take down the GOP, yes … was originally published in Compendium Miscellanea on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
"Trump may take down the GOP, yes …" in Compendium Miscellanea
This may be true, and if Donald Trump is the nominee, the Republican Party will not have my vote in the general election for President; I will find a third-party candidate.
But much of the rest of your analysis is misguided about both causes and symptoms, highlighted by calling Ted Cruz “Trump-lite.” Cruz has lived his professional life as a strict constitutionalist; Trump is a “confidence man” who has no intention of letting the constitutional limits of presidential power get in his way. It’s impossible to conflate the two outside of blind political hackery.
The thing is—There is still time for the Republican Party to stop Trump’s destruction. Of the Democrats, what good options are open to them when the only two presidential candidates are (1) someone who, at best, carelessly put the lives of human assets in danger and (2) someone who doesn’t understand basic economics?
Trump may take down the GOP, yes … was originally published in Compendium Miscellanea on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
December 3, 2015
There’s no true alternative to Evernote …
I’m pretty sure that the Evernote replacement you are looking for is … Evernote.
I, too, have tried the divided route of iA Writer for text notes, Dropbox (or iCloud Drive) for document storage, Spotlight for document search, something else for reminders, etc. The choice — in some fashion — is between using disparate tools depending on the file type you want to work with or using the one product that isn’t quite as good but that can unify file types into a single “note.”
Right now I have chosen to live in Evernote. It’s a system that works well, though thoughts linger that it’s just a shell over what the operating system itself provides and that I shouldn’t be so invested in one software product. I’m comforted by how easy it is to export notes to HTML files.
UPDATE (3/30/2016): Andrew Henley has written a helpful piece on how to use Mac OS X in much the same way that people use Evernote. The drawback I see (and have experienced) is that the iCloud Drive app on iOS cannot do anywhere near what Finder / Spotlight can do on a Mac, whereas Evernote’s iOS app can do much of what Evernote’s Mac app can do.
There’s no true alternative to Evernote … was originally published in Compendium Miscellanea on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
