2009-07-03

Chan at Triablogue inverts Psalm 23, showing the desperate condition of those outside of Christ, and the corresponding urgency for the preaching of the Gospel. The Lord is not their shepherd

Phillips: “Sometimes it's good to be reminded how sober, a-theological, and fiercely objective all Real Scientists are. (I particularly appreciate the deep concern from the female Real Scientist who (A) finds the theology of the Creation Museum "offensive" and a distortion of the Christian message, and (B) is an elder in a Presbyterian church. One assumes she handles the data of the fossils as objectively and accurately as she handles the data of Scripture.” Hither and thither – 7/3/9

What Christians offer the world is not themselves as moral/spiritual examples, but broken lives which say, I’m a sinner saved by grace; we offer Christ and Him crucified. What Christians Have To Offer

This article at Boundless comments on an apparent inconsistency between beliefs and practice in terms of modesty and clothing, indicated in this particular case by a pretty young woman wearing a shirt that said, “virginity rocks”, when that shirt was quite… form-fitting, and hot pink. http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/07/virginity-rocks-but-not-on-a-tshirt.html

Haykin notes that though our Calvinist and Protestant forbearers are models of faith, following Christ soteriologically, Calvin and others nevertheless erred in following a medieval Constantinian model, in that they advocated the use of the sword to curb heresy, particularly in repressing both orthodox and heretical forms of Anabaptism. Calvin’s legacy- asking forgiveness from the Anabaptists

Academics need to write clear prose. JT points to Doug Moo as an excellent example – his sentences are crisp and clear, not complicated and cumbersome. Olasky on Writing Clearly

Adams gives his summary of the appearance of controversy in each book of the New Testament, with the aim of pointing out that much time spent refuting falsehood (i.e. pejoratively called ‘heresy hunting’) is not de facto out of step with the NT. Controversy in the New Testament

Rachel Barkey passed away yesterday morning. “If you have not yet watched Rachel’s video testimony of her battle with terminal cancer, we would strongly urge you to do so today.” Rachel Barkey

Martin Hengel has passed away. Bird has a small tribute here, noting his scholarly accomplishments. Martin Hengel Passes Away

Ligon Duncan appreciates Parker’s Portrait of Calvin, but with a few caveats. Parker, while a towering historian and scholar of Calvin, has quasi-Barthian qualms with his doctrine of predestination, and seems to overly a bit of conservative Barthianism in his readings of Calvin (such as asserting he didn’t hold inerrancy). Duncan thinks he could have done a better job with the explanation of the Servetus incident. Praise for T.H.L. Parker's Portrait of Calvin and a few little caveats (Ligon Duncan)

T-fan points out a misunderstanding in a news article entitled, “Catholicism in Mexico Survives Only as a Cult, Priest Claims.” ‘Cult’ refers to worship of Mary (hyper-dulia), not an English cult. In English speaking countries this worship is downplayed, seemingly to lure Protestants. He links to the picture of the church accompanying the article, which depicts an idol of Mary. Catholicism in Mexico Survives Only as a Cult-

From Titus 1, Turk gives this charge to pastors, who are to rebuke sharply those who are ‘evil beasts and gluttons and liars’ so that they would be sound in the faith: is your job to see to what degree you can cut in on the culture's empty talk and deception in order to get somebody's attention, or is your job to rebuke those who are full of empty talk and lies and deception? Rebuke them especially

Clint recommends Charles Bridges’ The Christian Ministry to new pastors. i) It talk about ‘success’ in ministry without reducing to a how-to manual of worldly techniques. ii) Bridges argues that sermons should be full of content, but accommodate themselves to the physical and intellectual capacities of people to absorb things.  A Classic Work For Pastors

As a followup to the previous, Clint agrees that it is certainly proper for a teacher to stretch people by his teaching – for that is to learn and change. But Bridges’ second point has value in that young pastors must be careful not to mask self-indulgence and a lack of love in ‘faithfulness’: when trying to communicate abstract/complex theological ideas, some do not undertake the work to communicate these things in plainspoken ways. Faithfulness does not demand preaching at the level of their own studies. To Accomodate or to Stretch-

Some Arminians, struggling to reconcile the idea that God loves all men the same way, and yet that he sends people to hell, suggest (to the appeasement of their own conscience) that the loving thing to do is to let a child do what he wants. Which, of course, as any parent knows, is patently false. That’s a profoundly unloving thing to do. Manata points out that in these terms, the loving thing to do would be to force every single person to accept Christ. Arminianism's Loving God- Giving His kids what they want

Ascol relates an amazing story of God’s grace in his church, through a long painful process of church discipline. He also relates the idiom that 80% of success is showing up. It seems that this holds true for the pastor as well. A long journey in church discipline-Pt. 1. Here’s the second A long journey in church discipline-Pt. 2, and final part: A long journey in church discipline-Pt. 3

Here’s some reflections at Genderblog by a new mother. i) there is something precious about sustaining a frail person who depends on you for everything – a reminder of how frail we all are. ii) the innate instincts of motherhood are kicking in. iii) everyday activities take on a special joy and value. iv) The Lord answers prayers for wisdom. v) She and her husband are kids at Christmas with the new baby. Thoughts on Motherhood

Righteousness has the basic underlying meaning, in all its contexts, of being in line with some standard. Improve your biblical word power 1- Righteousness

To the statement that ‘church-going is demonic’ from someone jaded at church, T-fan argues that church-going is a good-thing expected of Christians. i) It is taken for granted by James (2:2), it is exhorted as a duty to not be neglected in Hebrews (10:25), it is practiced from the very beginning of the church (John 20:19), and it was a Jewish practice continued by Paul (Acts 18:4). The Importance of Church Going

Leeman highlights a point made in the latest 9marks e-journal: Many young Western missionaries are examples of poor churchmanship, showing little commitment to the church, lacking involvement in church ministries, and yet thinking this is enlightened Christianity. Such missionaries need to maintain relationships with their sending churches and at the same time exhibit biblical accountability to local churches where they labour. Conrad Mbewe on poor churchmanship among missionaries by Jonathan Leeman

Paul Helm begins reviewing Wright’s new book, Justification. It’s not a response to Piper, but seeks to outflank him exegetically. Helm does not believe that he succeeds in showing that what Paul teaches is substantially different from the Reformed view of justification. Wright could have saved himself an irritating misunderstanding which contributed to his failure if he’d let Piper read the manuscript before he released – like Piper had done for him. “One has the feeling, occasionally, that Bishop Wright is not content unless he has the last word.” Wright says that God’s single plan was always to put the world “to rights,” undoing Gen. 3/11, but doesn’t seem to acknowledge tha covenant theology has long existed, appearing to think that a single history and covenant of grace is a fresh exegetical insight. There also seems to be the sense that semper reformanda means a never-ending research project, but the idea that we need a stream of fresh readings of Paul is wearying and scary. He takes Romans 2:1-16 as being about Jewish/Gentile believers, in line with Augustine, whose tradition he elsewhere dismisses. To particulars. i) Faith and works. While still vague, wobbling here a bit, but the gap in this debate seems to have shrunk: Wright holds that the future judgment corresponds to the present verdict which is simply/solely on the basis of faith. But are virtues from the Spirit the sign of faith, or the supplement to faith? ii) Imputation. Wright has a forensic, law-court approach to justification. But what is imputed, and how? Wright is clumsy with Reformed theology here, likely as a result of believing that God’s righteousness (in Paul) is his covenant faithfulness (i.e. his character, not just an expression). So in this view Christ has no righteousness to impute; he takes righteousness as being the status of the person whom the court has vindicated. iii) Imputation and fudging the Reformed view. Wright thinks that the Reformed view is a transfer from a treasury of merit – but what then of the imputation of sin? Did the Reformers never think of this? Treasury language is not in Luther/Calvin, more reminiscent of Tetzel. Wright is taking a slap-happy unclarifying approach to doctrine/history. Wright actually seems to caricature the Reformed view as some sort of infusion of righteousness, saying they are wrong, since righteousness if ‘the status you have when the court has found in your favour’, but seems to be clueless that this is the standard Reformed meaning of imputation! It’s not good enough in this debate to simply give acres of Pauline interpretation – you need to show how that connects to the view you’re trying to refute. Wright in General

Bayly asks, re. Exodus 23, "Would Christians today be angry at God if He blessed them this way--that none of our wives or daughters would miscarry or be barren? Say God poured out His favor on us and all our homes sprouted children just like olive trees sprout branches; would we be pleased, or would we be angry?" He goes on to say that when God blesses his covenant people, they have children, and he disciplines them, they don’t, and pronounces that a curse is on those who use birth control in the churches. No woman miscarrying or barren in your land

Bayly points out the absurdity of saying that, in light of the killing of 50 million babies in the United States, people can engage in ‘overheated rhetoric’. In light of Jer. 7:5; 19:5; 32:35, “what would one have to say or write to be guilty of "overheated rhetoric" about this extreme wickedness that is such an abomination that it never entered the Mind of God?” The impossibility of overheated rhetoric in opposing abortion

Bayly talks about the disgraceful, slow capitulation within the PCA church to feminist egalitarianism. “We need to face the simple fact that the egalitarian feminist heresy never stays static. Its attack on God's Fatherhood is relentless, both outside and inside the Household of Faith, and day by day it gains or loses territory. Either it destroys lives and souls, or those lives and souls are protected by faithful shepherds wielding the Sword of the Spirit as they call out to God to silence the Evil One. So this is written as a tribute and encouragement to these godly men and the wives and mothers and sisters who stand with them. May your tribe increase.” Gratitude for the faithful men who are fighting against the egalitarian feminist attack upon God

DeYoung looks at the question of whether one can be a Calvinist and an egalitarian, in light of the amount of cooperation among Calvinists of various stripes, yet who make complementarianism a plank of such cooperation. He does think on can be a Calvinist and an egalitarian. But, he’s glad that such efforts by Calvinists have taken this stand on complementarianism: i) Egalitarianism is historically a slippery slope. A hermeneutic that allows for egalitarianism, overstating the implications of Gal. 3:28, blurring gender roles, and so on, makes it hard to take a firm stand on homosexuality. ii) Gender issues matter in a massive way these days, given the tragic confusion on manhood and womanhood in our day. iii) Complementarianism seems to signify one who holds truth in a number of important issues, like inerrancy, penal substitution, and eternal punishment. One can assume a lot about a Calvinist complementarian. The same can’t be said about all in the list of Calvinist/egalitarian scholars cited by the one who posed the question. iv) It is a practical necessity to come down on one side of the gender debate – simply put you cannot waffle. There are real life implications of it, and no matter what you do, you’re on one side or the other. Why Do the New Calvinists Insist on Complementarianism-

Challies pulls some points from the book The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment. i) Christians have a contentment sustained by God in a way that unbelievers do not understand: Everything he has, no matter how little, is an expression of God’s love to him, through and by Christ, for his good, pointing to future greater good to come. That attitude is a pervasively different perspective. ii) Since all afflictions come from God, there is a sweetness in them, knowing they come from the hand of love. iii) Such affliction identifies the believer with Christ, coming from the same love that loves Christ, and by which Christ suffered. iv) Through faith the believer gains strength from Christ. v) The creature is but a pipe to convey God’s goodness to you, and so if God cuts off the pipe, for your good, so that you must go to Him directly to drink, how is this bad for you? Reading Classics Together - The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment (III)

Hays notes that in Roman Catholicism, Scripture is a figurehead in the sense that it is a cover for the Magisterium’s corrupt tyranny, a nice face while the Magisterium calls the shots. Thus this Magisterium makes the sort of mistakes that only an institution which deems itself immune from error can make. Scripture as figurehead

Hays debates some Roman Catholics. Here’s some points of note: i) To the Romanist distinction between interpretive authority and the authority of the revelation, Hays points out that if the only access to the revelatory authority of the Bible is via the interpretive authority of the Magisterium, then the authority of the Magisterium is functionally equivalent to the authority of the Bible. You can never appeal directly to Scripture to keep the Magisterium in check since the Magisterium is, itself, the checkpoint. ii) Moreover, the NT is the embodiment of interpretive authority with its use of the OT. Now, we don’t need an interpretive authority, so much as true interpretation. iii) Romanists assume when arguing for baptismal regeneration that Jn 3:5 and Tit 3:5 denote baptism, which begs the question at hand. Same with John 6:55 and the Eucharist. iv) To the charge that private interpretation means you’re stuck interpreting the bible with the lens of our contemporary age: the point of grammatico-historical exegesis is to interpret the text with a view to original intent, ironically contra Roman interpretation, which is heavily influenced by modernism these days. v) The fact that Scripture is inspired writing doesn’t mean that every inspired writing is ipso facto Scripture. Inspiration is a necessary rather than sufficient condition of inscripturation. vi) If an authority extrinsic to a truth is required to believe that truth (so a Romanist: “An authoritative interpretation [of Scripture] is authoritative not because it is true (though it is true), but because of the authority given by Christ to the Magisterium to which is due submission of mind and will regarding what is the true and authentic interpretation of Scripture.”) then we have a moral relativism, wherein the obligation to believe a truth depends on some authority apart from that truth. If it is objected that we do have an obligation to believe a truth, then why is a true interpretation inadequate? Why the further need for an authoritative interpretation, over and above a true interpretation? (note that its the Romanists who distinguish between truth and authority) Authority, infallibility, & inspiration

T-fan notes that neo-Amyraldians have been using the term ‘limited/unlimited’ atonement to describe their position, which is not a good way to day that the death of Christ has a general benefit for all mankind, in that it incidentally prevents their immediate destruction. Atonement is the reconciliation, the rendering of God as propitious (favourable) to the beneficiary. So you can’t call the temporal benefits incidental to the salvation of the elect ‘atonement.’ Indeed, these effects make a person more blameworthy. ‘Universal’ and ‘unlimited’ are not the same thing; the merit of Christ’s death is unlimited for the elect; the incidental benefits are merely universal. Atonement Category Error

Phillips quotes:  "When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance" (Martin Luther, thesis #1 of 95). "Repentance means turning from as much as you know of your sin to give as much as you know of yourself to as much as you know of your God, and as our knowledge grows at these three points so our practice of repentance has to be enlarged" (Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit [Revell: 1984], 104) Luther and Packer on repentance

JT has an interview with Driscoll regarding his book, Religion Saves. An Interview with Mark Driscoll on Religion Saves

From girltalk, after posting the closing to Carolyn Mahaney’s Feminine Appeal: “Why do we blog about biblical womanhood? We want to give those who oppose God's Word nothing evil to say about us. But more than that, we want to do our measly bit, together with you, to commend the “grace of God [that] has appeared, giving salvation for all people” (Tit. 2:11).” Feminine Appeal

Phillips reposts a blog from a while back on Pyro, which is a good meditation on the cost and love of Christ’s death to free us from sin: Christ’s love is free, it is distinguishing – for His people, it is eternal, and it is revelatory of Him, not us (God did not love you because you’re worth it but because God loved – it’s of Himself). Christ’s blood is precious, it is pure, and it is powerful – He did not merely make it possible for us to loose ourselves from sin, but He actually loosed us from sin by His blood. What Price Freedom- [Requested classic re-post]

DeYoung posts a number of reasons people sent in for why they love their church. It’s worth reading. Why You Love the Church

McKinley posts a few links regarding tri-perspectivalism: “To over-simplify, the insight is that church leaders tend to be prophets, priests, or kings.  Prophets love to proclaim the word of God and dream about where God is leading the church.  Kings love to put systems in place to make it happen.  Priests make sure that everyone is cared for and feels God's love along the way. ” Triperspectival Leadership by Michael Mckinley

Swan notes a quote of Gregory of Nyssa in Google Books that speaks of the Holy Spirit, “whose declarations are unwritten.” However, in Greek, the text actually says, “whose words are committed to writing” the exact opposite. SO this doesn’t help Rome the way she’d like. Gregory of Nyssa's Unwritten Traditions

Turk answers the question, “Do you think that the "insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers" were Christians or false teachers?” Basically, there are non-Christian false teachers, and Christian false teachers (those who teach wrongly on something), who need a sharp rebuke: “Some false teachers are Christians. It disqualifies them as teachers, not as men or women who are being saved by grace. ” Peter was a false teacher for a time. John Stott is on hell. And so on. What should we do about them? Paul instructed Titus to rebuke the ones who needed rebuking sharply. Rebuke the false teacher as one who is full of God's word and all the mature fruit of the spirit. A Reasonable Question

Phillips has some comments on the sadness of those who, with Michael Jackson’s death, having their lives so bound up with that broken shell of a man, that they have lost all meaning in life. They grieve as those who have no hope. He contrasts them with Phil Johnson’s thoughts following the death of his friend: “The legacy Taylor leaves is lives touched for the Gospel, made better by encouragement and instruction in the Word, better-prepared for eternity. Jackson leaves people with nothing, except (in the case of the alleged twelve) a feeling that with him gone, they're empty, and life is too painful. (For some, it's even worse than that, if this isn't a pathetic joke.)” When someone unbelievers like dies, they say they’re ‘in a better place’, but on what basis? None. We have the objective historical fact of Jesus’ bodily resurrection. So we don’t grieve as those with no hope. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Michael Jackson's mourners- grieving as those who have no hope

Burk comments on Obama’s address to the homosexual community. He’s not promoting tolerance of different views, but rather, Obama aims to marginalize those who hold a heterosexual norm to be marginalized until their view becomes culturally untenable. For Obama, social progress means overturning the Judeo-Christian norm of heterosexual monogamy. Obama reflects an increasingly entrenched view in the culture – that the fight for gay rights is morally equivalent to the fight for civil rights for women or minorities in the past. “The moral upshot of this view is that those who oppose gay-rights must necessarily be placed in the category of bigot.” The reality is that Christians must recognize that the laws will be changing, and there will be new realities to adjust to. Be prepared, so that we might remain faithful. Thoughts on Obama’s Remarks at the LGBT Reception

Payne has some thoughts on church planting from Moore’s Church Planting conference: i) Pragmatism isn’t the right way to describe church planting methodologies in many cases, since this isn’t about a cold do whatever it takes attitude, nor is there the idea that there’s a magic formula for success. There is the need for wisdom in planting. ii) “Church planting” should not be equated with “evangelism”, since the structural process of starting a new congregation doesn’t lead to Gospel growth of itself – it can be mere transfer growth. You need to be mission-minded, and plant some well-trained evangelistically minded people at the new location. iii) Bringing people to church may be more appropriate in a ‘churched’ culture like the USA, but in Australia, which is much more unchurched, getting people to church isn’t the best way to evangelize them – go out and do it. Wisdom for church planting

Bridges has some comments on Arminian atonement: Isn’t not trusting Jesus a sin for which Christ died? If so, then how is God just and righteous to send you to hell for not believing? Also, if Jesus took your punishment on Himself, and God sends you to hell, how is that just? Isn’t that double jeopardy? If Jesus took the punishment you deserve at Calvary, wasn’t justice satisfied? If not, what did He accomplish? “Arminian justice: Christ dies for the sins of all mankind, and yet part of mankind gets to endure everlasting torment. That's not justice, that's injustice. That's not righteousness; that's unrighteousness.”. Arminian Justice and Righteousness

Grimmond thinks we need more preaching where the emotion matches the message. “please note I'm not talking about faking emotion; I'm talking about contemplating the reality of the things that we speak about when we open the word of God.” We need more pathetic preaching

Engwer has some questions and comments regarding the ‘messiness’ of the canon of the NT. The post touches too many different things to be aptly summarized, but here’s a quote: “The historical approach to the canon isn't the only approach one could take, as I discussed in a previous post. God isn't dependent on historical argumentation to lead His people to a recognition of what is and isn't scripture. But as far as the historical approach is concerned, it's significant when a large majority of scholars agree that the large majority of the earliest Christians agreed upon the large majority of the New Testament. Making a historical judgment about the minority of books that were more controversial is more difficult, but even that judgment isn't as hard as many make it out to be, for reasons I've explained elsewhere.” “The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who want us to follow their variety of infallible guide in order to arrive at a canon of scripture have to make judgments about history, such as what men like Papias and John Chrysostom did and didn't write, without that infallible guide. The atheist who asks how God can expect people to sort through the difficult historical issues involved in making a canonical judgment not only ignores the fact that God isn't dependent on historical argumentation in guiding His people, but also overlooks the many similar judgments he makes regularly regarding history, science, relationships, diet, medicine, and other issues in life.” The Messiness Of The Canon

Hays begins, “The fall of Lucifer (as well as Adam and Eve) is often thought to present a psychological conundrum. To commit sin, you must desire to sin. How could a sinless being ever form the initial desire to sin?” LFW is no avail, for it can’t describe what would make sin appealing in the first place – how is sin desirable? How do things get started in the first place? He argues for distinguishing between possible and actual agents. Like an author contemplates different characters for a novel, we might conceive of God contemplating possibilities in creation. There is no constraint on what the possible character will do; though characters must interact with others, etc. But an actual character will only do one thing. The initial fall of Lucifer, Adam, or Eve is not especially mysterious in this framework – only so if we begin with the actual individual: there is nothing either in or out of character for a possible agent. When God creates Lucifer, he instantiates one possibility–out of many. “There’s a sense in which God makes every creature do whatever it does, but not in the sense of making it do something contrary to what it would otherwise do, when left to its own initiative.” There’s nothing a possible agent was going to do or not do. God’s choices are of course characterized by His wisdom and justice. The fall of Lucifer

T-fan points to another example in support of the point that among Roman Catholics there is a great lack of unity of conviction. Catholicism Not a Good Predictor of Convictions

JT points to a sober caution for the young gifted pastor from John Newton, who points out the peril of popularity in light of the present condition of the human nature. There is a connection between popularity and pride like the fire and gunpowder. They can’t meet without an explosion, unless the powder is very damp. We need the Lord to constantly ‘moisten’ our hearts by the influence of His Spirit. How will you respond when the people hang on every word, when they throng about you? Beware, my friend, of mistaking the ready exercise of gifts for the exercise of grace. Newton- The Peril of Pastoral Popularity and Pride

Kurschner suggests taking a whole day every month to study Greek and Hebrew, and has some other tips for immersing yourself in the languages and learning them well. A Greek and Hebrew Acquisition Tip for Pastors

Here’s an op-ed to Sarah Palin, which assumes she wants to run for president. “There’s a reason why the Left and much of the media establishment hated you from day one. Some hated you out of the fear that you might stop Barack Obama’s unfolding coronation. Others because you seemed to expose the snobbery, arrogance, and ideological pieties of elite feminism. Your beauty, your status as a working mom, your blue-collar husband, your bravery in taking on the political establishment in Alaska, your proud status as a pro-lifer and mother of a special-needs child: All of these things were — and are — deeply threatening to a secular left-wing cultural elite.” However, she’s busy whining about the media and giving bumper sticker answers to problems outside of her expertise, seemingly unaware that politics is about persuasion. She’s taking the bait. And she shouldn’t listen to her biggest fans. However, she has one thing: Charisma. And she can learn what she lacks, and she has time to do it. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE1OTE3OTFhMmZkOWE5MDQ5MmZhZTFjMzE2MjcxNTM=. HT: JT, who thinks she’ll try, but should not and never will be president. Sarah Palin

Here’s a Twitter dialog between Drs. Haykin and Yarnell re. Reformed and Anabaptist traditions. The Kind of Dialogue We Need

Grimmond posts a call to plant more churches from the Presiding Bishop of the Church of England in South Africa. “Church planting was part of the lifestyle of the New Testament Church. The Pauline approach was to concentrate on major cities and commercial centres that were at the crossroads of main travel routes and from where surrounding areas could be evangelized by his converts… It is my earnest plea that every congregation in our denomination will consider investing in the Kingdom of God by aiming at planting a new church within the next year.”  A call to plant more churches

Phil Johnson posts a flowchart of emergent thinking. Emergent Flowchart

Here’s a note from Jean Williams at Solapanel to watch for these things, pride, perfectionism, and people-pleasing, in ministry. “I think that's a rather good Bible study! I wonder if they'll notice” (pride). “I know my kids need my attention, but I'll just read over that article one more time” (perfectionism). “I know people will disagree with me, but if I play down the differences, perhaps I'll keep their respect” (people-pleasing)… Against pride: all that I have, I have from God, and it is all for his glory. Against perfectionism: I am perfect in God's eyes, clothed with the righteousness of Christ. Against people-pleasing: what people think of me doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is what God thinks of me, and he cares about faithfulness, not success. The temptations of ministry- The three Ps

Girltalk has a reminder from Isaiah 46:1-4 that idols cannot carry our burdens, but the true God can and will bear us up, so let us cast our burdens upon Him. Our Burden Bearer