Whosoever Wills Is the LynchPin For Many Pastors

"Whosoever wills" seems to be the lynch-pin for many pastors against the idea that God has to positively elect and raise to spiritual life dead sinners. Yet do Calvinists argue against texts that speak of "whosoever wills"? For many sermons that I have listened to over the past couple of years, it certainly seems to be the case.

I would like to know why the only apparent possible understanding of "whosoever wills" is that a person must have a free, libertarian, autonomous will? As a Calvinist, I have never said nor have I heard anyone else say that believers, who believe in Jesus Christ, do so against their will, nor have I ever taught that those who are "Irresistibly Drawn" by the Father are drawn against their wills.

I have been told several times recently that God chooses His elect by looking down the corridors of time and seeing who will choose Him. Then in the same breath, I am told that God chooses His elect based on nothing in them nor what they do. So in the end, it seems to come down to some poor understanding of the term "foreknowledge".

I have heard statements that God chooses based on His foreknowledge. I think that is fair enough, but what does that mean? This can be a tricky area for many Christians who slip up and give away their Christianity without knowing it.

Christians have confessed God's Omniscience for nearly 2000 years. We must deal with the question of the basis of God's knowledge. If we do not, then the Open-theists (which many pastor friends of mine know nothing about, sadly) will continue to come into our seminaries and Christian colleges as being a legitimate viewpoint. It is not.

God's knowledge is not based on His ability to see the future, but is based in His Eternal Decree. If it is anything else, why is God ever glorified? If God is not in absolute control of history, how can we praise God for what He has supposedly done, if in fact, He has not done it! Are we going to argue that things accidentally worked out the way God wanted it too?!

If you are a Christian believer, you are so not because God saw the future and saw you choosing Him. Instead God chose you for His purpose and His will to the glory of His grace. If it is within man in any sense, then by definition God does not receive all of the glory.

There are other ways to look at this question, but they all come to the same conclusion. Any consistent Biblical view of the will of man must understand that the man who wills to come to Christ, does so by the Sovereign Act and Free Sovereign Grace of God.

Soli Deo Gloria

The Day He Almost Got Saved

My brother has written a Blog entry that I can very much identify with. His grammar isn't the best (neither is mine), but the experience he shares is worth the read. He is not a theologian, yet he can see error and manipulation as well as anyone. I think the Orange Truck Blogger may want this testimony on his site. His (Orange Truck Guy) Tuesday's post sounds eeeeerily similar in theology.

Follow Their Own Advice

I keep hearing that Terrorism is Bush's fault. Conservative foreign policy is making and breeding more terrorists. If Bush would just be a "Liberal" and try to be friends with them, then men like John Kerry could be able to reason with them.

I think they may be right. I have noticed over the years that the farther left the Left becomes, they unintentionally make more conservatives. So I think they should take their own advice. The Left should all become conservatives, and then we might be able to reason together.

:-)

Be Careful Who You Endorse

An acquaintance of mine just sent me a link of a book The Last Week. What is interesting about this link is the endorsement by Brian McLaren:

“Conservative Evangelicals usually think of themselves as the ones who take the Bible most seriously, but Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan’s The Last Week shows one of the most careful and insightful readings of the Bible I’ve ever come across. The authors dig into the gospel of Mark’s day-by-day account of the week leading up to Easter, and they excavate profound insights into the political and spiritual dynamics of Jesus’ true passion - his message of the kingdom of God. Readers across the spectrum will be challenged, educated, stretched, and perhaps disturbed (in a constructive way) by this important, fascinating, and well-written book. Even those who quarrel with some conclusions will be inspired and instructed by others. Highly recommended!”
— Brian McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christian

You might be thinking, “Who cares?” What is interesting about this endorsement is that a very well known American Baptist pastor, Tony Campolo, has endorsed a book by Brian McLaren. Brian McLaren is probably the most well known voice for the heretical movement within Evangelicalism, the Emergent Church.

Now Brian McLaren is endorsing a book written by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. These two authors do NOT believe in the Bodily resurrection of Christ, nor do they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. They are two theological liberals, who are well known for their work with the Jesus Seminar (Remember Peter Jennings’ pathetic special?).

So in essence we have outright heretics being promoted by a not so bad heretic (?) being promoted by a liberal American Baptist pastor.

I thank God His Kingdom will endure and go on despite the evils within and without the walls of the church.

Soli Deo gloria

Dave Hunt and the Church

Has the Church replaced Israel part 2 was a recent article written by Dave Hunt. Hunt is a Dispensationalist. He sees National Israel as a separate people of God that God loves in a unique way, even differently than the church. There are many godly men who are dispensational and hold to some understanding that National Israel is still under the Mosaic Covenant.

Theological Liberalism has left many mainline churches dead. Many Christians, who believe that the Bible is literally true, desire to hear conservative voices. However, Dave Hunt, in my opinion, is a man filling a void that he simply isn’t intellectually qualified for. He has debated a wide variety of religious groups. He speaks for many conservative Evangelicals. Yet after listening to him speak several times, I simply do not think he is able to be consistent in his logic and argumentation, nor is he able to do simple exegesis of the Biblical text.

In his second article, he is attempting to write a “sharp rebuke to those such as Hank Hanegraaff, D. James Kennedy, R.C. Sproul, et al., who teach that the church has replaced Israel.” Yet his article is full of logical flaws.

He starts his article against cultic groups such Armstrong’s, who “persist in the ridiculous theory that the ‘Ten Lost Tribes’ of Israel migrated to the British Isles and that therefore all those of British descent are the true Jews today.” What this has to do with anything is beyond me. Having read and listened to him debate, he loves to use the scattergun approach and the “poisoning the well” technique. By even mentioning these cultic groups, anyone who would even dare to think the church has replaced Israel must be a wacko…right?

He then proceeds to quote many Old Testament texts. For instance he says:

The One whom the Bible 203 times calls “the God of Israel” has sworn by an everlasting covenant that Israel (three times called the “apple” of His eye–Dt 32:10; Lam 3:18; Zec 2:8) will never cease to exist as a nation: “Therefore fear thou not...O Israel...though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I...will not leave thee altogether unpunished” (Jer 30:10,11). “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city [Jerusalem] shall be built...it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever” (Jer 31:38-40).”

Now this may seem impressive to the crowd that already agrees with him. Hunt however, never addresses the other side’s view.

First, I wholeheartedly agree that Israel will never pass away. The assumption by Hunt is never defended. I do not believe Hunt even knows he has assumptions. Perhaps if he took the time to understand his opponent’s viewpoint, he might learn something. Over the years I have come to believe he is simply not capable of understanding or receiving correction when he has been demonstrated beyond doubt to be wrong.

His assumption is quite simple. His interpretation method is to start with the Old Testament and then interpret the New Testament. Therefore, anytime the term Israel is used, for Hunt, it must mean National Israel under the Mosaic Covenant. The New Testament refutes such a methodology. Even if Hunt’s view is accepted though, he still misunderstands the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace as opposed to the Covenant of works made with Moses on Sinai.

Second, Paul explains with the greatest of clarity in Romans 8 and 9 that not all who are Israel are Israel. Therefore God’s promise of Grace established in the Abrahamic Covenant have never failed for His elect. In other words, the true Israel of God have never been those who were born physically of Abraham, but born again spiritually and believe in the Covenant of Grace.

Third, the Church replacing Israel is really a misnomer. Israel has never been replaced but redefined or even expanded. The National Israel of the Old Testament was but a shadow of the substance to come. Christ is Himself the true Israel of God. Since Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, all who are joined to Him by faith whether Jew or Gentile are the Israel of God.

The Church is the body of Christ. It is the New Nation that Christ established. Hunt never mentions 1 Peter 2:9.

But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Was Peter mistaken here? Was Peter saying that the Church replaced Israel? No! He was teaching that all believers in Christ are Israel. Therefore the New Testament should be our guide as to what the Old Testament means.

The fact that Hunt spends two full pages of writing proving nothing, should explain to us that the power of Traditions might be overwhelming and even downright blinding. Hunt has considered those who differ from him in eschatology to at times be in heresy. All the while he has shown no ability to deal with the Biblical text, nor does he have the ability to use logic or sound argumentation.

So far in reading his materials, the only reason I see people supporting his ministry is that he affirms what many already believe in a time when theological liberalism has wreaked havoc among American Evangelicals.

John 3:16 God's Love Saves Perfectly

This past Lord's Day was Layman's Sunday. I know. I know. Layman preaching? Well, all three of our Pastors were at the Area Conference in Hutchinson, KS. I am not sure how the conference went, but no one threw any rotten food at me. I usually take that as a good sign.

I preached the sermon on John 3:16 that I preached for my class at St. Francis last January. I think I may have preached 30 minutes there. Yet somehow, Sunday's message was 50 minutes. Go figure. Anyway, if you would like to suffer through it again, here is the link.

I pray that the Lord was blessed and that His people were as well.

Soli Deo Gloria

If God Commands...Man Must Be Able?

Dr. Jerry Vines recently gave a sermon against Calvinistic theology in Southern Baptist Life. What amazes me about men such as Dr. Jerry Vines is that they tend to think that Arminians have their verses and Calvinists have their verses. Neither side seems to be willing to understand the other.

I have found this completely untrue. After many years of reading on a layman's level, I have found Calvinists responding to all Arminian arguments. The reverse however is simply not the case.

Tom Ascol offered a critique of several of Dr. Vine's points. Dr. Vines stated at one point:

"It also raises questions about the character of God. Because, listen, in Acts 17 verse 30 it says that God commands all men, all men everywhere to repent. But now wait a minute. If they can't repent until they're born again and yet God is commanding them to do something which they are not able to do, what does that say about the character of God?"

This objection has been answered countless times. A man with a doctorate should be one of integrity and one who is well studied, especially when preaching before the people of God.

Dr. Ascol's answer was a little different than normal. I thought it was simply brilliant.

Dr. Vines leaves the implication unstated that it would be unjust of God to require what a person is not able to do. Yet, Jesus clearly commands us to do what we are presently unable to do when He says, "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Interestingly, and no doubt unwittingly, Vines' objection is based on the the philosophical foundation that drives both Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism. Both of these errors claim, just as Dr. Vines indicates, that a man's responsibility extends only as far as his ability does. The Arminian sees this and says, "Yes, and we know that sinners are held responsible to repent and believe, therefore they must have the ability to do so." The hyper-Calvinist sees this and says, "Yes, and we know that sinners do not have the ability to repent and believe, therefore they are not responsible to do so."

It is the Calvinist who refuses to accept the rationalistic presupposition. Rather, Calvinism recognizes that the Bible teaches that sinners are both morally unable and yet spiritually responsible to repent and believe.

Although Dr. Ascol doesn't take the time to critique the entire sermon, he answers many questions. Perhaps one of these answers may be what you are looking for.

Spurgeon's Sermon Link

Here is a link to the actual sermon given by Spurgeon (Kuddos to Mike). There is simply no way any serious minded person can read this sermon and come away with the conclusion of Ergun Caner. Perhaps Dr. Caner should use some of the skills he gained in getting that prefix to his name.

Ergun and Romans 9

The October 16th's post on Ergun Caner's Blog:

Just some food for thought, from the 1859 sermon by Charles Spurgeon entitled JACOB AND ESAU.

"Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly -— it is the same thing - created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever."

CITATION: Charles Spurgeon, Sermon: JACOB AND ESAU (January 16, 1859)

I read recently that I "“turned Romans 9 upside down". ” Well, then I stand in good company... with Spurgeon... against those who embrace reprobation.

This is a refutation of the charge that Ergun had mishandled the Word of God? First of all, the charge against Ergun is about his sermon in which he misquotes Romans 9. I listened to that sermon, and he clearly stated that God loved Jacob and hated Esau based on what they would do. So let's see what the text says shall we?:

Rom 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
Rom 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
Rom 9:12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
Rom 9:13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
Rom 9:15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
Rom 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

Now that you have read the text, does it have anything to do with Spurgeon's quote? Does it have to do with what God expressly commands and wills? Ergun most certainly overthrew the text in favor of his Tradition.

What do we do with the following portion of the text? Should we ignore it?

Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
Rom 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
Rom 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
Rom 9:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
Rom 9:23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
Rom 9:24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Here we are specifically told that God did in fact raise Pharaoh for a purpose. That purpose was to display His wrath. Ergun would do well in learning the major differences in the terms "Election" and "Reprobation". In fact, I have even Blogged about the terms in the past. If I can understand them, shouldn't he?

I do however have a question for Dr. Caner. If God knew beforehand that perhaps billions of men would choose to go to hell, and He knew beforehand there was nothing he could do about it, why did He create them? How does his position solve anything?

The problem with attempting to make Spurgeon a non-Calvinist is that history won't let Dr. Caner. With the advent of the Internet and easily researchable engines to give large amounts of information, the truth is easily found if wanted. Dr. Caner may attempt to go the road of Dave Hunt, but Hunt was soundly refuted. Perhaps Dr. Caner would be wise to read a little more before he tries to manipulate citations.

Reformation Weekend

Reformation Weekend

October 27-29, 2006

• First Baptist Church

420 S. Scott
St. Francis, KS

• God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility

Meeting times:
Friday 7:00 pm (session 1)
Saturday 10:30 am (session 2)
                         12:00 pm (dinner is provided)
                           1:30 pm (session 3)
                           3:00 pm (break)
                           7:00 pm (session 4)
Sunday 10:30 am (session 5)
                         12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

Pastor Roy Hargrave will be preaching in each session. The Saturday afternoon session will include a Q & A time with Pastor Roy.

Lodging is available in homes on a first come basis.  For more information call: 785-332-3921 or 785-332-2959, or email:  fbc67756@sbcglobal.net.  In  St. Francis there is Cook's Empire Motel, 785-332-2231. In Goodland (35 miles south) there are a number of motels;including Comfort Inn, 785-899-7181, Howard Johnson, 785-890-3644, Super 8, 785-890-7566, and Best Western, 785-899-3622


Dr. Roy Hargrave, who has been in the ministry for more than 31 years, is now in his 17th year as Senior Pastor at Riverbend Community Church, Ormond Beach, Florida. Under his leadership, the congregation has jumped in size from 400 in regular attendance to over 1400. The size of the staff has also grown from seven full-time staff members to 30 full-time staff members, including 11 pastors. The budget has grown from $500,000 per year to over $2,700,000 annually.
With some 120 ministries on it's 112 acre campus, including  Riverbend Academy (which gives students a classical Christian education, Riverbend has become a leader in cutting-edge ministries. In the year 2000, the church instituted a theological training school (Riverbend Bible Institute), with over 200 attending each semester in a wide variety of theologically based classes.
Pastor Roy's philosophy of ministry includes a strong commitment to solid, expository proclamation from the pulpit. “The Lord builds His own church” is one of Pastor Roy’s favorite sayings, and he believes that the means He uses to build it is the clear, God-anointed preaching of the “whole counsel of God.” Evangelism is important to him, but it is not the priority of his ministry. The glory of God is the priority, and all the important things, including evangelism, flow out of that chief end.
Pastor Roy, who also has a media/radio ministry called "Reflections of Grace," was born in Kennett, Mo., in 1954 and grew up in nearby Rector, Ark. He was nine when he was saved by the grace of God in a country Methodist church in his hometown. Throughout his childhood and teenage years, he was very active in sports, particularly baseball and basketball. He was an Arkansas All-Star basketball and baseball player at Rector High School. After his senior year at Rector, he attended Southern Baptist College (now Williams Baptist College) in Walnut Ridge, Ark. He transferred to Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Mo., and received his bachelor's degree with a double major in Philosophy and Religion. In 1987 Pastor Roy received a Master's Degree in Theological Studies from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis, Tenn. He did graduate work at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and then received his Doctor of Ministry degree from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., in 2002.
Roy is married to the former Marki Mosley of Rector, and they have four children: Nathan, Rachel, Jordan and Roy Alton II (also known as "R.A.").
Pastor Roy's Purpose Statement: "To clearly and faithfully declare the truth of God by rightly dividing the Word and courageously proclaiming its content to exalt Christ through my life and my words."
(The above information was taken from http://www.riverbendchurch.com/ )

Emir Also Responds

Emir Caner also has written a response here.

I'd like to review several of his points.

1) "All four men agreed to a 3-hour debate."

That is true and a fact. What seems to unsaid is that what was agreed upon was actual debating time, not just start to finish.

2) "The moderator, Dr. Brett O’Donnell, realizes that this format will actually lead to a 3 1/2 hour time frame, if not more, since the participants have overlooked time needed for introductions, intermissions, etc."

Irrelevant what O'Donnell realizes. He is the moderator to the agreed to debate.

3) "Dr. O’Donnell, recognizing that the audience is expecting a 3-hour time frame, emails all four participants to notify them of his modification of format."

Fact, moderators don't have this authority. Dr. White has done over 60 moderated scholarly public debates. Never have I ever heard of a moderator that has this kind of power.

4) "Dr. James White refuses outright any change in the program. In essence, he does not believe Dr. O’Donnell has the right to do anything besides introduce the participants and watch the clock."

Moderators moderate and do not dictate and overthrow already settled agreements.

6) "Dr. White refuses this compromise and declares an ultimatum. If he does not hear from the Caners by 5 p.m., he will cancel the debate."

Fact, Dr. White was not about to let the moderator dictate and take over the debate at the last second. It is very difficult to believe that the Caners were unaware of the "ultimatum" by Drs. White and Ascol. They purposefully remained silent until 2 minutes before 5. That is simply ridiculous. Would Muslim apologist, Shabir Ally, be treated this way?

A demand that was not mentioned in Emir's Blog was that all of the taping rights were also being taken away from White and Ascol and being given solely to LU. That is just plain wrong.

7) "The Caners, acknowledging Dr. O’Donnell’s authority in the debate as well as his years of wisdom, do not acquiesce to Dr. White’s ultimatum."

Caners are simply hiding behind this bold faced lie. O'Donnell does not have this authority. Also O'Donnell has no experience (that has been made publicly known) in theological debate for and in front of the people of God. He only has experience in collegiate political debate. That is not even remotely the same.

8) "Dr. White announces that he and Dr. Ascol are pulling out of the debate."

Who wouldn't? However, Dr. White still has a standing challenge for neutral ground and a one-on-one debate. Somehow, I believe that neither of the Caners will be brave enough to defend their positions, yet have no problem lying to the people of God from their pulpits.

Sad, very sad indeed.

Caners Silently Give In To O'Donnell?

Update to the Update10/10:

I waited till this morning thinking surely there must be more to Ergun Caner's response than this. Read Ergun's statement on the situation here. I have read it and have been waiting for further details. You know...things like facts. Calling Dr. White a whiner sounds like whining. Dr. White has fully responded to Caner's "statement" here. Dr. Ascol has responded here.

As you will see, the Caners simply are not able to withstand the truth and the facts. Brett O'Donnell may be a great college debate coach, but he plainly has no idea what he is doing in this arena, or he knows exactly what he is doing and is covering for the Caners. The playground bullies have been demonstrated to not be worth the hype. Given time, substance triumphs over image.


UPDATE! 10/9/06:

Dr. White has reported the President of Liberty Seminary as saying,

Calvinist Debate Cancelled by Hyper-calvinist James White backs out of the debate. Refused to submit to moderator rules. Details will follow tonight.

Ok, so now we know that they are sticking with their bold faced lie. Now the curious question is how are they going to twist the facts. Since details are supposedly coming tonight, hopefully we won't have to wait too much longer. Perhaps they are going to get some assistance from the Clinton Warroom?

I decided to go back and read Ergun Caner's brief bio at this web page. Notice it says:

Caner has debated Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Baha'i over sixty times at universities and colleges. He has written fourteen books, including When Worldviews Collide (LifeWay 2005), on the subject of Global Apologetics and defending the Christian faith.

Has anyone ever seen these supposed debates. It is my understanding Dr. White has asked for tapes of these debates and never managed to get a copy. If you have heard him do these debates, please inform the rest of us. So far, I haven't seen any ability in this man to do what he claims he is able to do.

The real irony in all of this is that Liberty University has a first rate debate team. Last April it was reported they won "All Three National Policy Debate Rankings Championships". Yet their President of the Seminary clearly is out of his own league. It is simply shameful that the debate team's director, Brett O'Donnell, has sided with these men and blemished Liberty's name.

--------------------------------------------

I wondered what kind of politics at Liberty University would determine the rational for overthrowing the agreed to terms of the debate over Calvinism and Baptists. Well Tom Ascol cited Brett O'Donnell on his Blog as saying:

"Given that the two sides cannot agree on the terms of the debate in a spirit of compromise he [Dr. Falwell] concurs that the debate should not occur and therefore there will not be a debate on October 16 agreeing with the decision that was announced on Friday by Dr. White."

I am going to say it. Not only have these people been ridiculous, but this is a bold face lie. You can read more from Dr. White's Blog here. I simply cannot conclude that O'Donnell was acting on his own to make sure this debate did not happen. It is clear that the other side made sure this wasn't going to happen.

I have been following the ministries of Tom Ascol and Dr. White for years now. I think I may say with some level of certainty, that these men have the upmost respect for truth and honor. I simply do not see the same with Falwell, O'Donnell or the Caners.

I have family members that simply refuse to go back to church due to poor behavior by so-called pastors. I truly am disappointed that Christian men behave in such a fashion. It makes my duty to witness for Christ all the more difficult.

Webster and the Apocrypha

I have finally finished William Webster’s The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. The main part of this work is a mere 86 pages and easy reading. It belongs in every layman’s library. If you need more information, the book’s endnotes are almost a 100 pages! It is very typical of Webster to give lengthy citations and plenty of resource information.

The book has basically three chapters. Chapter 1 is the Canon of the Jews. Chapter 2 is the Beginning of the Church Age to Jerome. Chapter 3 is From Jerome to the Reformation. Then the book ends with a short conclusion.

It is extremely clear from his presentation that the majority of the church has understood the difference between the Canonical books and the Apocrypha. It is only if one accepts an external authority that one may come to erroneous conclusions.

A couple of things I did think would have helped make the book better though. First, it would have been helpful if the author spent more time explaining the Council of Trent’s anathematizing of Protestants for their outright rejection of the Apocrypha as being Canonical. The second it would have been nice to see a chapter written expanding the Apocrypha’s internal problems and demonstrating why it should not be in the Canon. That may not fit the intention of the book itself, but it sure would have been nice to have all of that information in one volume.

Anyway, you need to read this important work. Go and get it. Here are a couple of links.

Here and here.

Caners Finally Did It With Twelve Days To Go

Well, it finally happened. The playground bullies have not figured out how to get out of the mess they started, and their feet were held to the fire. With twelve days to go, the Caner brothers and their moderator have hijacked the debate. Therefore Drs. White and Ascol have agreed to cancel it. I am not sure what spin they will try to give their crowd in order to save face. I simply hope for sake of honesty and of truth they will simply just remain silent. Somehow, I doubt it.

For over 24 hours Dr. White's channel has been wondering if this debate would take place. The news has finally been reported on AOMin's Blog. You can read the latest here. If you haven't been following this saga, don't start.

If you planned on going to the Lynchburg debate, "Baptists and Calvinism", you must remember, I told you so. :-)

Any Republican With Guts?

I would like to make a suggestion for Republicans running for office. I realize the Republican Party is not an extension of the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless, I believe it is important for Christians to participate in the political realm as well.

This whole so-called Foley Scandal is obviously a serious problem for Republicans. It has them on the defensive. Yet can anyone take seriously the idea that the Democrats really care about this situation? Since when do Democrats get upset about homosexuals practicing their…um…well, you know, that something Republicans can’t talk about in public.

I would like to suggest that Republican leaders make a bold move. Since Democrats are attempting to be shocked at someone practicing homosexuality, Republicans should stand in front of the nation and say that we caught Foley committing homosexual sins. Keep repeating sentences with the words homosexual and sin over and over again. This will enrage the homosexual Democratic Base. They will show their true colors. This will only re-energize the Republican Base and show that Democrats really don’t care except for the political opportunities they foresee (badly I might add).

In my estimate, Republicans would be seen as doing right with their Religious Right Base. Democrats would be infuriated over something they attempted to do, which was to keep Republican voters home and disenfranchised.

From Darkness to Shadow, Issue 2

Julie Staples is in my opinion leading a double life. By day she slaves away as all good married women do taking care of her family and home. By night (and I am sure during the day too) she writes till her fingers fall off. A couple of years ago she finally managed to get a publisher to publish her comic book, Shadow Fox.

Now Issue 2 is being released. Yes, my wife was the first to order, and she ordered 3 copies. There is obviously a person, who should be expecting a gift for his birpday pretty soon (you know who you are since you may be thinking we forgot).

Anyway, the comic is excellent, and I don't feel the slightest bit bad about this shameless advertisement. So go to the site linked above and check it out for yourself.