Filed under: Top 5
In honor of reaching our 100,000 view, Manspeak would like to remember all 452 posts by asking, “What are your top 5 Manspeak posts of all time?”
Filed under: Thought Initiative
by Justin Day
In Christendom there is no more heated of a debate than the one over justification. To shortly sum it up, the debate can be thought of as a dispute over how God declares us to be legally righteous (to have perfectly acted in accordance with his law) in his sight. Predominantly there have been three main views on this: (1) works [or legalism]; (2) faith; (3) faith and works.
Thankfully, every major Christian sect has rightly condemned option (1), works-based righteousness, as pure heresy. Thus, this debate has fallen between the last two options. Protestants proudly proclaim that it is by faith, and by nothing of our own merit, that we are saved. However, most Christians today (mainly Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians) believe that we are not saved by faith alone, but by faith and works.
Although their position is heavily influenced by tradition, proponents of justification by faith and works do not believe that their position is without biblical support. In the 17th verse of the 2 chapter of the epistle of James we are told that “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” Later on in the chapter, James explicitly states in verse 24 that a person is “justified by works and not by faith alone.”
These verses seem to fly in the face of the Protestant notion of Sola Fide. Any thoughts?
- Is this interpretation of James correct? Is he teaching that we are justified by faith and works, and not by faith alone?
- If he is teaching against justification through faith alone, can this be reconciled with Romans 10:9-10? If not, does this mean there is a contradiction in scripture?
Filed under: Culture
By: Travis Evans
This year, both of my grandparents will be celebrating their 60th wedding anniversaries. I think that part of the reason that they have stayed together for so long is that they understand the commitment that marriage is, something that our culture has lost. They married with the knowledge that “till death do us part” really meant something and that their vows had weight as they were making a covenant with each other before God.
Age Women Men Under 20 years old 27.6% 11.7% 20 to 24 years old 36.6% 38.8% 25 to 29 years old 16.4% 22.3% 30 to 34 years old 8.5% 11.6% 35 to 39 years old 5.1% 6.5%
The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage: 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.
Why do you think that fewer and fewer marriages have the lifespan that my grandparents’ have?
Filed under: Humor
So I’ve got this “pet peeve,” so to speak. And hopefully you can relate. When dog owners give their pets people names. When I’m in the mall or some place comparable, and I see an older lady or some high school aged female, and they’ve got a dog that’s too small to sustain itself in the wild and they call it “Jessica” I just can’t help but feel like something is terribly wrong. Animals should be named things like Tiger, or Spock, or Lucky, or Pit-of-Vipers, etc. NOT names like Jonathan, Phillip or Elizabeth.
Some, however are okay. Ralph, Jack, Bob. I can handle those. But please don’t name your dachsund Jeremy or your Shitzu Amanda.
It’s just wrong.
Any other examples?
Filed under: Devotions
by Caleb Hancock
While blogging regularly, I have come to realize that I can benefit greatly from others’ posts. Especially when those others are pastors and authors of gospel-centered resources that edify the church world-wide.
Therefore, for your blogging pleasure, I have linked a post from John Piper below that corresponds to our current theme and is sure to challenge and encourage your faith in the fight for sanctification. Enjoy!
Filed under: Top 5
No details here. Manliness pure and simple. Meat! Meat! Meat!
What are your Top 5 meats?
Filed under: Thought Initiative
by Tyler Thayer
Over the Inauguration we saw three prayers given by various pastors: Gene Robinson, Rick Warren, and Rev. Joseph Lowery. Essentially, each came from different walks of life, each represented a different protestant denomination, and each prayer sounded drastically different. Obama said he wanted the event to reflect diverse views, and thus we received three very different prayers with different content and contexts.
Check out this article from AP: Inaugural prayers aim for a more diverse America
Some questions to help us think about these prayers:
1.Are all the prayer’s biblical? What makes them different, and what is significant about each?
2.Was Obama right in asking such a diverse group of pastors to pray? As President and as a Christian, is his inclusive and ideas about representing diversity of religion a good idea? Are there any consequences?
3.Do the prayers contradict each other or are they unified? Do they cause a problem for Christianity?
4.After the Inauguration, is Christianity represented more clearly or is doctrine and scripture hazy?
5.Were each of them praying to the God of the bible?