Pastor Lynne Retires

I first met Pastor Lynne almost 14 years ago. I flew out to Kansas to get married at the First Christian Church in Scott City. I arrived on Saturday and had a brief counseling session. I could see very quickly he had a love for the Word of God. My Bride and I desired to have a Gospel preaching wedding. He was the perfect man. This was in 1992.

In 1997 we moved to Scott City. We looked for a new church home. The Baptist Church had a contemporary worship style service. We decided to attend. Lo and behold, Pastor Lynne was preaching. His enthusiasm for the Word of God was most contagious. It was not too long after that we were encouraged to become members of First Baptist.

Pastor Lynne saw my gift for teaching and allowed me to teach the Jr. High Sunday School class and an adult Wednesday night class as well. Every once in a while we would converse and discuss what I would be teaching. He was always in agreement with my ideas. Even when the Christian Education Board was a little concerned that I was not using published curriculums, he defended my beliefs and positions on what I was doing.

It was Pastor Lynne who helped arrange with Pastor Jim Collinsworth to have me speak at the High School Graduation Breakfast. It was pastor Lynne who recognized my limited gift for preaching and had me "fill-in" for him on a Sunday morning worship service. It was Pastor Lynne who gave my name to the denomination to be a substitute in churches without a pastor or a fill-in.

When my son saw his need to follow the Lord in Baptism, it was Pastor Lynne who spoke with my son over several weeks. It was Pastor Lynne and I who Baptized my son.

When major issues that arose in our church, it was Pastor Lynne who sought the Lord in prayer. Pastor Lynne spent much time in sermon preparation. Pastor Lynne spent much time visiting his people. Pastor Lynne drove perhaps over a million western Kansas miles to hospitals. Pastor Lynne was there when our family met a crisis.

God's shepherds know their people. Pastor Lynne knows everyone's name. Pastor Lynne loves his flock. Pastor Lynne gives all to the people the Lord has placed under his care.

It is 2006. Pastor Lynne has retired today from official duties and is moving back east in Kansas.

Pastor Lynne, you mean a lot to my family and me. You mean so much to our church. You are salt and light in our community. You will be sorely missed. May God bless you.

McLaren Endorses Campolo

I have been wanting very much to do a series of Blogs on the church and the importance of local church membership. But things keep coming to my attention. Yesterday I finished listening to a lecture series given at Masters Seminary on the Emerging Church Movement (click here). Once again the name Tony Campolo was directly linked to bad theology.

I had shown in past Blogs the dangers of Campolo's low view of Scripture and his understanding of salvation as being more of saving society. The picture seems to be becoming clearer for me as to why. Liberal theology as it is being expressed in the Emerging Church movement has Campolo's approval.

Brian McLaren is a leading proponent of the Emerging Church movement. He has written an endorsement for abook called Speaking My Mind written by Campolo. Critics of McLaren's books have shown his disdain for Historical Orthodox Christianity. Yet read Brian''s endorsement of the book:

“If you paid the full price for this book and only got chapter 8, you’d be getting a great bargain. The same is true for chapters 4,6,9,10, and 11. At a time when the term ‘evangelical’ is up for grabs, Tony’s voice needs to be heard”.

It is ironic that Emerging Church prophets are willing to literally embrace anything except for...yup, you guessed it...conservative Christianity. People who believe the Bible to be God-breathed and inerrant are seen as being dangerous.

It gets even better though when Shane Claiborne interviews Campolo. He asks, "When we talk about inter-religious cooperation [with Muslims], does that mean that we need to stop trying to convert each other?" Campolo responds:

We don't have to give up trying to convert each other. What we have to do is show respect to one another. And to speak to each other with a sense that even if people don't convert, they are God's people, God loves them, and we do not make the judgment of who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.

I think that what we all have to do is leave judgment up to God. The Muslim community is very evangelistic, however what Muslims will not do is condemn Jews and Christians to Hell if in fact they do not accept Islam.

Isn't that just wonderful? God loves the Muslim just like He loves Christians.

Doesn't Paul say men outside of Christ have God's wrath abiding upon them, building up until the day of wrath? I guess warning sinners of their impending doom is not as big of a concern as it is in building inter-faith relationships (whatever that may mean).

Campolo goes on to say in another portion:

Catholicism would say that at the moment of death every person is confronted in that split moment with Christ and is given the opportunity of saying yes or no. To say otherwise is to say God has got to be a pretty unfair deity, to condemn three quarters of the human race to hell without them ever having a chance.

God is unfair if he doesn't give everyone a chance? Chance for what? To reject God some more? God is being unfair if he judges a sinner for his sin? Whatever happened to Romans 1-3? Truth is, what is unfair is that God would give anyone a chance! Grace by definition is radically unfair.

So you might be asking by this point, "Why do you care about this Tony Campolo guy?" Well, Tony Campolo is a very well known pastor with a lot of influence. He made the cover of American Baptist Men Ministies periodical. He is an American Baptist. Therefore, he is as dangerous as any liberal theologian within my own denomination's walls.

As a Christian who loves the Word of God, I would simply encourage you to listen to the lecture series. You will especially be blessed by McArthur's opening lecture. Christians may not remain ignorant of the inroads theological liberalism has made. Campolo's attacks on the faith do not come from without but within the crumbling walls of evanjellyism.

Can Non-Christians Enter Heaven?

Another shameless plug. Last summer on Long Island, the great Debate X took place. Dr. James White debated Bill Rutland on the question "Can Non-Christians Enter Heaven?" You can buy it here for a couple of bucks.

I am always amazed at how many times Christians wonder about this. Usually the question is "What happens to those who never hear the Gospel of Jesus?" It is just not fair in their minds that God would not give everyone a chance.

I have had Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Christadelphians and many Protestants raise the objection to me that it is not fair for God to not give everyone a chance. It is one thing for a non-Protestant to think that way, but for Protestants it is quite another. Simple reason is Mormons and JWs and RCs all have one thing in common...extra Biblical Authority that surpasses Scriptural Authority. Protestants however claim to only believe in the Bible.

Protestants seem to forget what their life was like before the Spirit of God converted them. They seem to forget passages such as Romans 1 & 2, John 6, Ephesians 1 & 2 and Romans 8 and 9. In fact, it seems they don't really understand the nature of God, the Gospel and man at all.

It is the current view of the Romans Catholic church that Muslims adore the one true God with Christians. If a Muslim is truly following the dictates of his conscience to the best of his ability, then he can enter heaven. God will be gracious enough for those kinds of people who just didn't get a chance.

It is simply un-Biblical to think that the God of the Bible has chosen to unite a people with Christ, predestined them to be conformed to His image, chosen them and called them, send ministers to evangelize his people, calls them from darkness to light and yet somehow is NOT ABLE to get them the chance to repent and believe. It should not be surprising for Rome to make this claim since they do not possess the Gospel.

I thought I'd put up one of the cross examinations. Cross examination is always the best part of a debate, and this is no exception. In this short clip, Bill Rutland cross examines Jame White. It is obvious how Mr. Rutland views the nature of man as opposed to the Biblical view of man. How would you answer his questions? Do you think White's position is correct?

Look forward to seeing some of your responses.

Our Local Church

Since I read the first book, I had to read the second. Again it is a short 58 pages of very helpful material for the professing Christian and the local body of believers called the local church.

The book explains in the introduction that:

"Many insist that churches will prosper only when certain biblical doctrines and practices are marginalized or refitted to mesh with the surrounding culture. In contrast, we are convinced that the local church will be strongest when biblical doctrines and practices are clearly defined and then faithfully upheld, despite the expectations of those around us and in humble submission to the Head of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ."

With conviction, the book goes on to explain the purpose for a church's statement of faith. The explanation is quite good. In a day when creeds are despised and church unity is done at the expense of truth, this was a welcomed section.

The book however does seem to reinvent the wheel by writing a new statement of faith when there are already such great Creeds that have come down to us from our reformed baptist forebears. Creeds such as the London Baptist Confession are very good at summarizing the faith. Obviously, Pastor Elliff's intention is to keep the book short. Thereby writing a new shortened summary was necessary.

The next major section was on the importance of local church membership and the importance of church discipline. This is sorely missing in the preaching of many pulpits today. In a day when preachers touch topics as "Healthy Churches", the major biblical texts are ignored or glossed over. Almost no exegesis is ever offered. Yet, Jesus and the Apostles deal with the subject many times throughout the New Testament.

The last section gives key passages regarding church discipline. This is extremely helpful as well. Although the book is hardly exhaustive, it belongs on the shelf of every layman. It is what it set out to be...a pamphlet on the local church.

WCC Follows Far Left

Yahoo News gives a story and many reasons why Christian conservatives should steer clear of the World Council of Churches.

The Rev. Sharon Watkins, president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), worried that some may interpret the statement as undermining U.S. troops in Iraq.

Really? Opposing the war would be seen as undermining U.S. Troops? What would give this Reverend that idea? (sarcasm)

"Hurricane Katrina revealed to the world those left behind in our own nation by the rupture of our social contract," said the statement.

I think these liberal churches and ministers need to realize that liberal Christianity has nothing of substance to offer the world. Simply preaching a gospel of subsidizing the poor doesn't address the issues that men need to deal with. The Gospel is not merely dealing with societal blues. The Gospel must deal with the heart of man. Preaching a Jesus that is only spiritually alive in our collective memory is a false Gospel and a false hope.

Liberalism has failed Katrina victims, not American ideals. If liberalism is so great and the true answer, Louisiana should have been a panacea, since it was run by liberals for the last 40 years or more.

The truth is this country is at war. I have said it before, and I guess I need to say it again. Liberalism and Christian liberalism can NOT withstand Islam in any form (radical or otherwise). Only the Biblical Gospel can deal with man's sin and as a result, society's problems. Without the Trinitarian/Christian Biblical worldview as the foundation for government, the World Council of Churches would cease to exist under persecution or worse yet, become even farther left-wing liberal.

I realize that for many, the Liberalism of the WCC is well known. The fact that they are called Christians while denying many essentials of the Historic Christian faith is indeed troubling. The media will simply refer to them as Christians, and many conservatives may be fooled as we have seen already.

A Seeker's Guide

A friend of mine sent me an article by Jim Elliff. The name just kept bugging me. It seemed I should know him. Well, it turns out I have a very smart wife with a memory better than an elephant (I know...never have the words wife and elephant in the same sentence.)

She reminded me that a Baptist pastor with reformed beliefs encouraged me last summer at a wedding. His name was Pastor Robert Flack. Once he found that I was reformed in my theology, he started getting all excited and handing me several books. Two of them were by Jim Elliff.

I went through my book shelf and sure enough, I had put them away, intending to read them, but never getting around to it. So I decided to read the first one, Pursuing God: A Seeker's Guide.

Pastor Jim Elliff gives a Biblically sound presentation of the Gospel. The main part of the book is a short 58 pages. He explains clearly that dead sinners do not come to Christ. He explains that men are enslaved to sin. One part that is particularly good is that he demonstrates a true God seeker verses one who seeks for selfish reasons.

The Lord Says, "Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near."

There are those who seek a little while, but who never find, because their seeking is only surface, and their love for themselves is permanent."

This form of a Gospel presentation is sorely lacking in modern Evanjellyism. Sin must be dealt with. Repentance must be dealt with. Saving, Spirit born faith verses human faith must be contrasted. Jim Elliff does this with passion.

Pastor Jim Elliff has given not only the church a blessing by providing this book to help Christians present the Gospel, but it is also a great book to give a friend who is questioning how to get to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Save the World From Wrath or Warming

Bad day for Evanjellyism's worldview. First I read on Steve Camp's blog that the Mega-church pastor, Rick Warren, has decided to confront Global Warming. That is silly enough. I guess selling a bazzillion books with a weak presentation of the Gospel wasn't enough.

Now WorldNetDaily is reporting that 70% of Evanjellycals believe in Global Warming. I guess if you repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it. Truth is, the Modern Left-wing Environmental movement is simply an anti-capitilistic, socialistic philosophy. They seek to kill and destroy the free market system. They believe freedom is the greatest harm to the world.

Socialism and communism did not work for the Pilgrims or the Soviets or anywhere else it has been tried. The reason is simple. Dogs bark. Cats meow. People do what people do. Socialism and communism do not work because they are fundamentally flawed. They assume evolution and a view of humanity that is false.

Does anyone remember the masses of Americans fleeing to Russia? Maybe I am missing something, but if communism is so great, why do we not see anyone running off to China today?

It is time for pastors to be...well...pastoring and shepherding their sheep with God's Word. Playing into the hands of radical left-wingism is not their Biblical duty. Then again, this may be revealing more of the CEO mentality among pastors in the modern American church. Is the Holy Spirit moving among God's people to look to a more Biblical model for how we view the church and the nature of the Gospel? I guess time will tell.

I Thought God Had the Last Word?

O'Reily Factor questions Dobson of Focus on the Family. "Dr. Dobson, why should homosexuals be discriminated against and not allowed to be married?"

Reply: Five thousand years of history is on the heterosexual side, and the reason why marriage has been defined heterosexually for five thousand years IS...[drum roll please]..."children".

Yup! That was it. We are right, and they are wrong because of children. Perhaps he gave a longer answer, and I missed it. Perhaps he pulled a "read my book" [he did refer to his book] so I won't tell you on national TV.

I'm sorry folks. Dobson is just as wrong here as he was in saying Mel Gibson is annointed by God and considering him a Christian.God defines marriage, and God defines the Gospel.

Perhaps evangelizing without a clear and consistent presentation of the Gospel for the last generation or so is beginning to cause many to question their Traditions. As a pastor friend of mine forwarded an e-mail which said, "if we continue to preach the whole truth" perhaps men will be truly converted.

The Spirit often uses the enemies of the faith to bring Christians to maturity. Maybe all this nonsense is a good thing? Perhaps we will finally get past the philosophical presuppositions of the world and proclaim "Let God be true and every man a liar"?

Soli Deo Gloria

Whosoever Is Libertarian Free-will?

A great example of the power of Tradition within Baptist camps comes from Tony Cartledge, the editor of the Biblical Recorder. I must agree with Tom Ascol that Tony is hardly an anti-Calvinist. He admits to not understanding Calvinism and that there may be other ways of understanding a particular text.

For instance he concludes with this statement, "I'm probably more open than many Baptists to the idea that scripture can often be interpreted in different ways. The plain meaning of John 3:16, however, is something I can't imagine giving up."

I would like to examine his understanding of John 3:16 and see what his plain meaning is.

He says earlier in his Blog:

What about John 3:16, which says "whosoever believes in him shall have everlasting life"?

I don't claim to understand the inner workings of Calvinism in all its modified forms, but there must be some heavy parsing of meaning going on if you can turn "whosoever believes in Him" into "whosoever God has elected to infuse with grace so their eyes might be opened to respond in faith."

Now there is much wrong in his view of the Calvinist understanding, but notice he defines "whosoever" as being equivalent with a person with autonomous free-will. Notice he never comes right out and admits that. It is just assumed into the word. Surely Jesus never would have said "whosoever" unless He meant it in an Americanized free-will culture...would He?

There are two problems with the arminian or non-Calvinist understanding of the term whosoever. First is that whosoever could easily mean any kind of man. Whether slave or free, rich or poor, male or female and ect.. This idea fits much better with the context since Jesus is explaining that the Kingdom of God does not come through natural birth, but by a work of the Holy Spirit in a person's life.

Therefore the power of Tradition defining terms without people even realizing they are assuming definitions shines through. "Whosoever" can and should be defined by the passage and not by a philosophical viewpoint.

Secondly and even more important, the term "whosoever" does not exist in the text. Go ahead and look it up in the Greek interlinear translations. It is not there. Here is a literal translation:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Please keep in mind that Jesus is describing the work of the Trinity in saving sinners. He describes that "everyone believing" or the "believing ones" have everlasting life. No mention of free-will is even hinted at in this text.

So in conclusion, whenever we approach the Bible, we must do so in a God-honoring fashion. We must keep in mind we do have our Traditions. Lest we be like the Dave Hunts who think they have none. For in doing so, as Dr. White has stated many times, we become those, "who are the most influenced by them."

Soli Deo Gloria

P,C&D Revisited

En Neilson has reposted an older article explaining the problems of Phillips, Craig and Dean. It is worth the read.

Several years ago, a controversy arose concerning the beliefs of a so-called Christian music group, Philips, Craig and Dean. It was claimed that they were Oneness Pentecostals. That simply meant that they denied the Trinity. I personally wrote them and was able to confirm clearly that the accusations were true (I have since lost that e-mail since I am not very good at saving stuff).

I then sent an e-mail to our local Christian radio station with copies of the correspondence with P,C &D. They simply didn't see the problem. They were simply not able to recognize truth from error. Hence, P, C & D were continued to be played. Truth is not worth contending for I guess.

Here is an example why so many seem to wonder what the problem is. On their statement of beliefs page, they positively affirm the oneness view of God:

What We Believe We believe in one God who is eternal in His existence, Triune in His manifestation, being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost AND that He is Sovereign and Absolute in His authority. (I Timothy 3:16, Ephesians 4:4 & Colossians 2:9)

We believe in the Father who is God Himself, Creator of the universe. (Gen 1:1; John 1:1)

We believe that Jesus is the Flesh of God.

The above understanding of God may sound good, but it is not Trinitarian. Some may say that this seems like hair-splitting. If we are willing to cloud the revealed nature of God, then the Gospel will also be a clouded Gospel.

Note from the same page it says:

We believe that the blood of Jesus Christ atones for our sins and iniquity.It is through His shed blood that we are saved, healed and set free from bondage and the forces of darkness (Romans 5:9-11; Ephesians 1:7; Revelation 12:11)

This seems reasonable. But what is often the trouble with groups that claim to be Christian while not actually being Christian is that they use Christian terminology while redefining the terms. While the above seems to affirm salvation by Grace alone, it does not actually do so.

Later on the same page they affirm baptismal regeneration:

We believe that believers should be water baptized by immersion in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the circumcision of our hearts. It is through baptism that we publicly identify with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3-6; Colossians 2:11-14; Acts 2:38)

This statement clearly denies the Sovereign Grace they claim to believe in. They positively say that the human work of physical baptism is the means by which the Holy Spirit circumcises our hearts. The Gospel is perverted and becomes a work of man.

Jesus says that the Father is wanting a people who worship Him in Spirit and Truth. Therefore, Truth is worth contending for. To worship a false view of God is to violate the very thing Jesus came to do.

Perhaps the reason why so many Evanjellycals seem to agree with P,C&D is that they too have to some extent made salvation man-centered.

Mega Church: The Game

For those of you who love God's Word and grow weary from the nonsense that floats through Evangelicalism, click here for a good laugh. Sometimes you just have to laugh at things or you'll go crazy. I about rolled off my chair laughing at this one. As Rush says, "Deal with the absurd by being absurd."

God Bless

As He Sees Fit

So much of Evangelicalism's method of evangelism is to simply get people into church and get them to "come forward" or to atleast just say the "sinner's prayer". Never mind with dealing with the issues of the heart or explaining the Law and the Gospel. We don't even need to bother with the Spirit's role in giving new life when He sees fit.

Publisher, International Outreach with editor William Nichols has done the church a great service by publishing Jonathan Edward's sermons Knowing the Heart. Edwards truly searched the Scriptures and came to a very good understanding of how deceptive the human heart can be. Although I am only on page 41, the book has much to offer the modern day preacher and layman alike in how we approach evangelism.

For instance, on page 31 he says:

"When men are affected with reflections on their sins and are in a penitent frame, they are ready to think they shall always hate such and such sins as long as they live, but [are] apt in a very little time [to] fall into them again"

Isn't this much of we see in our churches. Men becoming sermon sick until they get home. Men caught in a sickness in which they make a deal with God to never sin again if....

Sometimes men "mistake common illuminations and affections for saving grace" (page 33). Yet in time, these men fall away from obedience to the Gospel and follow their own lusts.

How often do we see men in their own strength manipulate themselves to "believe" in Jesus, thinking they have been saved, when their belief is earthly born faith instead of Spirit born faith. All of this leads to a false assurance, which is deadly.

Perhaps the church needs to recognize that many of the "tricks" that modern evangelism uses to get people saved is only a wide path for many that leads to destruction. Christians need to be persuasive. They need to be bold. They need to be firm. They need to be thoughtful. They need to trust that when the Gospel is proclaimed faithfully and with clarity, the Spirit will bless His work as He sees fit.

Soli Deo Gloria

Tom Verses McDuffie

It is a shame when pastors, who are on the anti-calvinism crusade, decide to take their criticisms to the editorial pages or even their pulpits without first knowing what they are talking about. Pastors that are so willing to criticize a theology that they know nothing about from their pulpits will have to give an account for their behavior and intentions. This should not be something taken lightly by a called man of God.

A good and typical example of the misunderstandings of Calvinism is an article written by the Rev. Joel McDuffie, Is John Calvin in Heaven?, found here with a critique offered by Tom Ascol.

A big kudos for Tom to have taken the time to offer a rebuttal which to this day I have never heard a response to. For instance, here is a portion:

McDuffie: All God had to do was create heaven the first time, end of story. Filling heaven with beings predetermined not to sin is no more difficult than creating those who can.

Tom's response: Surely McDuffie is not suggesting by this second conjecture that he believes heaven will be populated with beings who are NOT predetermined to sin! Does he think that sin will be a possibility in heaven with the redeemed of earth and holy angels?

Exactly! If men must have a libertarian or autonomous free-will in order to be truly human and have the "real" capacity to love, does that mean men will still be able to sin while in heaven? If not, why not? To this day I have never heard of a credible response by those who argue against the Calvinistic position.

Anyway, the article is a very good response for those who like to think through what they are saying.

I Got That E-Mail Again

I got that e-mail again. You remember, the one with the story of a professor that tries to silence his Christian students by intimidation while using philosophy. His accusation is God must be evil since He created all things. Therefore since evil exists, God must be evil.

Then some quiet, thoughtful Christian student asks a question and blows the atheist professor out of the water by citing Einstein (Who knows if Einstein ever really said the statements in the e-mail).

The problem I have is that God needs no defense. We as Christians want to defend God’s actions as if God needs defending. Although there is nothing wrong with defending the faith, we often do it from weakness and not simply trusting the foolishness of God’s ways.

Here is a portion of the original e-mail and a slightly modified response that I wrote concerning the ideas in it:

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold...a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

Although it is true that God did not create evil directly, neither did he create the chair I am sitting in. Yet, who denies that God created all things and all things have their existence either directly or indirectly by His decree.

So the real problem with the professor is not that evil exists, but that he would even raise the issue. Most Christians miss the obvious in order to make sure that they keep God's nose clean. It is as if we must defend God from the charge that someone may accuse Him of even ordaining evil. God simply needs no defense.

So many evangelicals don’t realize that while we are trying to learn the Bible’s view of the world and God Himself, we often hold onto our old worldview. This causes many Christians to falter in a discussion such as the above. We feel we are being marginalized, and therefore we need to beat the enemy with his worldview (whether we realize it or not). So while the atheist is borrowing from the Christian worldview, evangelicals have the tendency to borrow from their old and often naturalistic worldview. This creates much confusion and allows the enemy to use Christians against themselves.

The truth is however, that Christians must learn Presuppositional Apologetics in order to be effective with this argument. The dirty little secret is that the professor ASSUMES the existence of evil. In order to do this he must accept the Christian/Trinitarian worldview. Then he attempts to use our worldview while mixing it with his in order to refute Christianity. In order to do this he must believe in the Laws of Logic and morality, and ect... But they ONLY exist in the Christian Worldview.

Therefore the professor need not even raise the problem, for in his worldview, there really is no problem.

Reconciling the problem of evil in the Theistic/Trinitarian worldview may require us to surrender our rationalism. But there simply is no contradiction in God ordaining all things including evil, while remaining Himself pure and Holy. This is the issue that needs to be explained to the professor. Otherwise God "allows" darkness with no purpose from Himself. If God is truly sovereign, this cannot be allowed.

God Bless

Howard

Space Is No Waste

My family and I watched an interesting program on the History Channel called Failure Is not an Option. It was a documentary of the U.S. Space program. My son loved it. I loved it. At points I even felt a sense of patriotism in the accomplishments of this great nation.

To think of man walking on the moon simply brings a sense of pride into my heart. Then somehow I always manage to think of the Tower of Babel. What was man able to do when he was united? Gen 11:6 says:

The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them."

Short of God's intervention, man seems to be able to do anything he sets his mind. This may be a great thing when men are governed by God's Laws. The Bible however says man's heart is deceptive above all things, who can even know it?

It seems to me that many of the accomplishments man has had in the last 200 years or so could have happened centuries or even milleniums ago. God has restrained man for nearly 6000 years. It sure makes one wonder why?

Then I hear comments from astronomers that "outer space seems like a big waste of space if no one else lives out there." This is exactly why men need to be restrained. We are not looking at the universe with God's Glory in mind. We are looking at it as if He does not exist. It is as if the glory of the stars say nothing at all, when the Bible says they testify to God's Glory day and night.

Perhaps Jesus' parable of the harvest is being fulfilled. Both good and evil must be allowed to grow up together until He comes. Just while men are reaching the pinnacle of their pompousness and rebellion, then the glory, which men deny, will be revealed.