Salt & Light

God Told Him Obama Care Was Very Good

2012-02-02T15:04:00.000-08:00

So God made President Obama pass Obama Care. As this story from Buzzfeed reports,

"And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself.'"

So there you have it. Love Thy Neighbor is now equivocated to forcing your neighbor by the barrel of a gun to pay for your health care. This same man, who has won the Nobel Peace Prize, has also loved his neighbors with bombs. Neighbors that we are not even at war!

Now to be fair, we are all moved by our religious beliefs, and those beliefs animate us in the public sphere. Fair enough. However, keep in mind, it is the Left that constantly makes fun of this kind of reasoning. Think of abortion. I am moved by a simple belief that abortion is murder. It also happens to be fundamental in my religious beliefs that the unborn are fully human persons. Yet isn't it the Political Left that argues I should keep my religious beliefs out of the public sphere?

The hypocrisy shines ever so brightly with this man.

Riding At the Cat House

2012-01-29T21:07:00.000-08:00

On a more personal note, my daughter and I decided to do some riding at a place we've never been before, known as the Cat House. It is a little place north of Dighton, KS and just north-east of Shields, KS [3 miles east and 3 north], which is basically the middle of nowhere near the Smokey Hills.

I have never ridden there mainly because I didn't know much about it, and it costs $20 per day per person. That is a big turn off factor, but the membership fee is even more amazing. I won't bother to tell you. Now to be fair, the membership fee is probably fair if you camp a lot. However, since I just want to ride a couple of days a year, I just can't see spending that much money.

Well, today, I spent the $20 and went with my daughter (he didn't charge for her today). Now I must say I was pleasantly surprised. It truly is a little hidden oasis for dirt bike riders. Now there were several campers there. So if you like camping in a desert looking place with no trees, I guess this would be your place as well. Plenty of fishing too!

Here is a picture of Rachel.

Now the negative, which may be a positive, was that there were not really any motorcycle trails per se. I basically rode anywhere I wanted. The draw back was that I had to be very cautious where I went. At one point I climbed a very steep hill only to stop as my tire hit the peak. You see, there was no top. It was literally a peak with a sheer cliff on the other side. So I had to do the skiing thing to get back down. Therefore, I needed to spend much of the day scouting what I could really ride.

However, this was also an advantage. I could literally climb all kinds of slopes, (yes, I said slopes in Western KS!) some of which had been cimbed many times,while others maybe not so much?

Now I don't want to make myself sound like a pro-rider. I am not by any means. But if you want a good work out and you live in western Kansas, and you don't mind losing $20 to ride one day, you may just enjoy yourself.

The Bible Is Not About You

2012-01-23T15:32:00.001-08:00

Have You Prayed About Your Faith's Truth?

2012-01-08T11:10:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I was visited once again by our local LDS, Mormon missionaries. Of course the two elders that stopped by were another two that I had not met before since they constantly rotate them. The conversation was very good, and to their credit, the young men tolerated me.

The conversation was typical. They started by asking me what I believed. Then they proposed their view about Joseph Smith being a modern prophet and that the priesthood has been re-established. Then came the famous question, "Have you prayed about the Book of Mormon?"

It fascinates me to no end that people place religious truth into an entirely different category of knowledge. As I commented last July in a post about that very issue (read here), we place religious truth in a merely experiential arena of knowledge. So when I ask the LDS missionaries about praying whether or not Roman Catholicism being the true church or the Methodists or the Watch Tower or a Hindu church or an Islamic church, and I get a warm fuzzy feeling telling me that one of those churches are the one true church, they simply revert back to praying for the heart burn feeling of confirmation, even though that heart burn feeling might be from having too many enchiladas for lunch.

Any time I appealed to the Bible, they used the old "That is your interpretation verses another interpretation" argument. Now of course, that is an argument that presupposes that the New Testament is unclear. This of course means God can't speak clearly. Now it begs the question. How do we know we are interpreting the Book of Mormon correctly, or Joseph Smith for that matter? Is God really unable to speak as clearly as Joseph Smith?

I decided to bring up the passages of Scripture that challenge this false presupposition. Here are a few of them. Deuteronomy 13:

¹ If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, ² and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” ³ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴ It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.

Where in Moses' teaching does Moses place knowledge in the mere esoteric category? Does Moses teach that we should pray about the Book of Mormon? The passage is quite clear. We are to test what prophets teach against the Revelation God has already given through Moses.

Of course, you will say, "How do I know Moses is a true prophet?" The answer is quite simple. The Revelation Moses gave was not in some secret room. Instead, God invaded history with all kinds of signs, not the least of which was the Crossing of the Red Sea. Perhaps if Joseph Smith parted the Missouri or Mississippi River, the LDS missionaries might have something to stand on.

In the New Testament, the Gospel according to Luke starts wit this:

¹ Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled^[a] among us, ² just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³ With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Where does Luke say something that would teach we should pray about his Gospel? Nowhere! Instead, Luke appeals to historical events that he personally has investigate and confirmed by eye-witnesses in order that Theophilus could have certainty outside of himself, a certainty that would not be based in some esoteric religious experience but a certainty that would be based squarely in the world in which we normally live.

Paul's charge to Timothy contains a most sufficient passage. 2 Timothy 3:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, ¹⁵ and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷ so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This passage is quite clear. Scripture is sufficient. We do not need another supposed God-breathed source. But could there be another source? One last passage from the writer to the Hebrew Christians chapter 1:

¹ In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ² but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

In these last days we have the full Revelation of God in the Person and Work of the Son of God. There is simply no need to go any further. There is no need for other prophets of other revelatory sources. We have all we need in Jesus Christ and His Apostles as preserved in the Apostolic writings in the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures.

In conclusion I think more passages could be presented, but I think it should suffice in these brief arguments that searching for truth through esoteric means is one Christians need to learn to be consistent within their worldview and evangelical missionary endeavors. If we believe Mormons are wrong simply on the level of "praying about the Book of Mormon", then we should not attempt to evangelize using similar means.

However, if we agree with their esoteric viewpoint, then we have no basis for evangelizing people to come to our faith. Of course this may explain why so many Christians accept the false premise of Mormonism being just another Christian faith. But Mono-Theism, by definition, can never be compatible with Poly-theism, no matter how esoteric one gets.

Theology Matters

2012-01-03T12:22:00.000-08:00

[I wrote this post originally for the Tea Party Hobos blog simply because it is more political, especially in defense of a political candidate, but since I think some of the issues raised by Michelle Goldberg have discussed on this blog in principle, I thought it worth posting here as well.]

Bill Anderson wrote a brief post on Lew Rockwell's blog this morning. Now I have noticed several statements that, though, I bet they do know the reasons for certain quasi-religious claims, the contributors of the blog seem to hide their knowledge in an attempt not to get into overly religious discussions on a political site.

First Bill quotes a Leftist, Daily Beast's, Michelle Goldberg:

It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law.

To which Bill responds by saying,

So-called biblical law would require stoning of gays and other measures that would mirror the Taliban, she writes. (Not surprisingly, Goldberg misrepresents both Covenant Theology and the diversity of opinion of people who fall under that theological umbrella.) So there you have it: Ron Paul's libertarianism is going to create a new American Taliban. Look for more of this kind of nonsense as clueless mainstream reporters try to write about someone who does not believe the State should be an object of worship.

Bill is absolutely right. Covenant Theology is very able to answer the objection by the Left's thinking concerning religious people wanting to establish some kind of Theocracy, but some seem to overlook that Covenant Theology is only now coming back into popularity in mainstream Evangelicalism.

Dispensationalism has been the popularized eschatology and theological framework for quite some time. It is Dispensationalism that has led many to favor the nation of Israel as if they were God's modern day people and theocracy. Of course, since Dispensationalism's utter predictive failure of Christ's Second Coming through date setting schemes, Dispensationalism is waning. But I think it might explain some of the statements on LRC.

As a Christian, I recognize "theology matters". It greatly impacts life and culture. Good theology does so in a good way. Poor theology does so in a poor way. So when women like Michelle Goldberg misunderstand (purposeful or not) politically active Christians, I am not convinced it is entirely her fault. Yet after trying to explain sound theology to people such as Michelle Goldberg, it is my experience she has no intention of trying to understand. She fears that without Central Planning from the Federal Government, the homosexual agenda will not go forth. And of course, as one who has embraced Libertarianism to an extent as a Christian, I have made that exact same argument. She is quite right for seeing Libertarianism's stress on private property rights as something to fear.

In other words, the easiest way to stop the culture war and/or win it from a conservative perspective is to restore private property rights. Then people are free to be who they are, and that includes being able to discriminate with your property. That is something, I think, Michelle fears far more than anything else.

Now she does mischaracterize Covenant Theology when she wrote,

In fact, they’re often much further to the right. While dispensationalists believe that Christ will return imminently and establish a biblical reign on earth, covenant theologians tend to believe its man’s job to create Christ’s kingdom before he comes back. The most radical faction of covenant theology is called Christian Reconstructionism, a movement founded by R. J. Rushdoony that seeks to turn the book of Leviticus into law, imposing the death penalty for gay people, blasphemers, unchaste women, and myriad other sinners.

Covenant Theology does no such thing. What I think she is referring to is a position called Theonomy. Theonomists are usually under the umbrella of Covenant Theology, but is in fact, an eschatological position based squarely in Post-Millenialism, and she may very well be right in linking this with an American version of Christian Nationalism. However, even its modern proponents such as Greg Bahnsen saw that Old Testament laws as cited by Michelle were problematic and that far more work needed to be done in this area.

In conclusion, the arguments provided by Michelle are in my opinion emotional and fear-mongering. She admits that she is taking the fact that her argument is based upon the "fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right" and that this position is a small minority among those who are Ron Paul supporters.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarianism and Theonomy are just not compatible.

A Couple of Quick Notes

2011-12-26T20:09:00.000-08:00

Two quick notes. First, I thought this brief discussion on preaching by Pastors Cory and Chris I think is a helpful reminder on the importance of God's Revelation and how it is to be handled.

Also, for Christmas I received a book, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants, by Greg Nichols. As time allows, I am certain I will interact with the book and offer some comments. This book has sold like hot cakes. I think it is for the simple reason as stated by one endorsement.

I am not aware of anything in print that treats this topic as clearly and comprehensively, and from a distinctly Baptistic perspective. -- Pastor Jim Domm

Personally, the only book that I have that treats this topic is from the same perspective is by Nehemiah Coxe, a particular Baptist of the 17th century. This book I think fills a giant void in the modern life of Baptists, who desire to be consistent in their theology.

Hitchens and the Meaning of Christmas

2011-12-16T06:48:00.000-08:00

Today is truly a sad day for National Public Radio, NPR, for one of their favorite God-hating atheists has died. On the other hand, it is truly a sad day for those who have prayed for this God-hating atheist, for this atheist has come before the Judge of all the Earth.

Of course, I am speaking of Christopher Hitchens. And as usual, these things seem to happen quite a bit near Christmas time. Nearly 20 years ago my own grandfather died on the same day. And quite similarly, he died (to my knowledge) apart from the Savior and the people that Savior has gathered to Himself.

Since so many are talking about Hitchens' death this morning you might ask, "Why bring this up?" I'm just one more voice in the world saying the same thing that other Christians are saying. That's true. I am just one more voice. But just as Christopher Hitchens was one voice among many for atheism, I am one voice among many that Christ has called to go into the world to proclaim "Good News".

So what is that Good News? Well, as we celebrate this holiday season, as one of many Christians in the world, I simply wish to remind the reader in this post why Christians celebrate Christmas. It is as Linus says in the Charlie Brown Christmas special:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

So this Christmas, let us remember that like Christopher Hitchens or your own grandfather, you are going to have the same end. And like them, we need a Savior above all else. Christ, the Son of God, has come into the world. Will you come to him this Christmas?

Conception to birth visualized - Alexander Tsiaras

2011-12-09T21:28:00.000-08:00

This video on the development of babies is simply amazing.

Merry Christmas Trees & the Second Commandment

2011-11-25T13:45:00.000-08:00

Sooner or later, I know the "Should we have a Christmas Tree?" conversation will inevitably come up. So I am going to get it out of the way now. My conclusion will be stated right up front. Christians may in fact be wrong for having Christmas trees. There I said it. But hold on....

Now in reality, I don't really care, but I am one that strives for consistency. So when my Jehovah's Witness friend comes over, I know in his mind, as he stares at the evil tree in my living room, he is thinking that the Watch Tower is right. I'm just a pagan. But I am not going to go out of the way and eliminate a cultural decoration simply because some JW thinks I am a pagan.

However, one could argue that, just as we go out of our way for our conscious stricken brothers over alcohol, we should go out of our way to not unnecessarily offend a JW. True enough. But if I did that, there would literally be no end. I would probably have to live at the bottom of the ocean in order to become acceptable to everyone.

Another argument that has come to my mind is the fact that I have argued against using improper means to get people to "experience Christ". Are we using the tree to get people to hear the Gospel and feel closer to the Lord? Again, I think this is where the Christian must be careful. In my opinion, Christmas Trees and other artful things are just that, cultural icons. If we use them as spring boards into Gospel conversations, then I'm not seeing the connection. However, if I have to gather my family and friends around a tree in order to feel more worshipful, then I am indeed being inconsistent.

The New Testament is clear about worship. We have the physical experiences we need in Baptism and the Lord's Table as instituted by Jesus Himself. Yet I am not convinced that Christmas Trees are necessarily something that cause us to violate the Second Commandment. If so, then many of the Old Testament icons such as the Ark of the Covenant would be problematic. Of course, those were provided by God. Christmas Trees were not.

So basically, my initially stated conclusion may be correct. It just depends on what we mean to do with Christmas Trees. As for now, I'll still set one up. My kids enjoy the season. They get gifts. Isn't that why we do this in the first place? To teach the importance of giving and the anticipation of receiving something wonderful? Hmmmm, but are we back to that experience argument again? I don't think so. My kids experience all kinds of things from me. If some of that helps them to find Christ, the supposed inconsistency becomes invalid.

So Merry Christmas, and if your conscience allows, let your kids open those gifts placed around that tree. Just don't look to it with prayer and worship. It's just a tree.

Accepting Boys Kissing...Each Other

2011-10-18T20:10:00.000-07:00

The Drudge Report linked to this article by CBS Connecticut. Apparently, we have yet another controversy of a bunch of homophobes walking out of a school play in which two boys kissed, but please notice, for the article, the author cleverly calls the boys men. The principle is cited in this paragraph:

“There are always circumstances (in organizing these programs) under which the values of the student or their family come into play,” said Adam Johnson, principal of the Government and Law Academy at the high school, told CBS Connecticut.

So there are different values with different people. Fair enough. It sounds as if he is being open-minded. But this paragraph says what is really happening.

“In the weeks prior … we were told by those organizing the play that there was going to be a boy-boy kiss,” said Johnson, noting the importance of accepting homosexual intimacy as society accepts heterosexual intimacy. “When one teacher asked if I wanted to remove it, I said absolutely not.” [emphasis mine]

The principle isn't trying to get people to just get along or even to get different individuals and families to tolerate those who are different from them. He is attempting to use governmental power to make children "accept" homosexuality, not just tolerate it.

So once again, we have an ethical system that simply has no foundation whatsoever being forced down our collective throats. As has been seen on this blog, they won't even try because they can't. Perhaps we need to rethink the role of government in this whole debacle called the culture war. Perhaps we, who are morally conservative, ought to rethink the entire culture war altogether.

Reformation Weekend Is Coming Soon

2011-10-15T09:38:00.000-07:00

Reformation Weekend

October 28-30, 2011

First Baptist Church

420 S. Scott

St. Francis, KS

The Providence of God in the Life of a Believer - Job

Meeting times:

Friday 7:00 pm (session 1) Defining God's Providence!

Saturday 10:30 am (session 2) Three Kinds of God's Providence!

12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

                                  1:30 pm (session 3) Questioning God's Providence!

                                  3:00 pm (break)

                                  7:00 pm (session 4) Human Reasoning and God's Providence!

Sunday 10:30 am (session 5) The Vindication of God's Providence!

                             12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

For more information or lodging recommendations call: 785-332-3921 or 785-332-2959, or email: fbc67756@sbcglobal.net. Our website is: http://fbcstfrancis.org. Limited lodging is available in homes on a first come basis.

Dr. Belcher has over fifty years in public ministry of the Word of God. He has served on the faculty of Columbia International University now for twenty-nine years, and he retired after the Spring 2005 school year. He also speaks at Bible conferences and in churches all over the United States, and internationally in various countries, especially India, as he heads the ministry named Evangelizing India for Christ. Dr. Belcher is an author of numerous books, and he has his own printing company called Richbarry Press. Dr. Belcher also serves as pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in West Columbia, SC.

Does One Need To Be a Christian To Be President?

2011-10-10T16:02:00.000-07:00

According to this article in the Baptist Press, Mormons don't qualify to be President when there are Christians in the race. However, the article states not one qualification but two [I realize there are three].

He added, "I believe that in Rick Perry we have a candidate who is a proven leader, a true conservative and a committed follower of Christ."

So to be elected to the High Office of the USA, one must be a true conservative and Christian. So I have to ask, which one of these qualifications is more important, "Being a true conservative" or a "committed follower of Jesus"? Somehow I doubt believing in Jesus has anything to do with this test. Otherwise, perhaps Obama is more qualified than Romney? Remember, President Obama claims to be a born-again Christian.

Right now, I'd vote for a true blue Jeffersonian Libertarian, even if he was an atheist before I'd waste another vote on a Republican like Romney or Perry. The pastor goes on to say,

"... Part of a pastor's job is to warn his people and others about false religions. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Mormonism are all false religions. And I stand by those statements," he said to applause

Now I agree a person's religious views may greatly impact how one governs. If one is an atheist, that person may have great difficulty in standing for the Prolife position, but perhaps not and should be judged on an individual basis. So an atheist or a Hindu may be far more Prolife than say a professed Christian such as President Obama.

But this all seems to me to lead back to the culture wars. And after fighting in a never-ending war for nearly 24 years, it seems to me that attempting to solve our cultural issues through the power of government is wrong-headed. I think Conservatives need to start re-thinking what Liberty is and the proper role of govenrment.

In other words, what do we want government to do? Do we really want to go back to the days of Prohibition on every issue? For instance, do we really want government to be involved in the homosexual debate? Would not a restoration of Private Property Rights go a long way in solving some of these things?

As my brother asked a conservative friend, if we make homosexuality illegal by the power of government, how far should government go? Do we enter gay homes with guns firing? You may say that is extreme and would never happen, but it happens now. Read this story about how our government fights the drug war. If the government can storm into house and kill you now for smoking pot, why not come into your house and kill you for anything else we give it power to do?

I have to ask a simple question, "Who is the candidate that Thomas Jefferson would vote for?"

Obama's Wedge Issue Is Sex

2011-10-03T17:53:00.000-07:00

The Washington Times is reporting tonight that President Obama is calling out the Republican Candidates for being silent on homosexual military personnel.

“We don’t believe in a small America,” Mr. Obama said. “We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot. We believe in an America where we’re all in it together, and we see the good in one another, and we live up to a creed that is as old as our founding: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. And that includes everybody.”

So the most divisive President in my life time is now accusing Republicans for being divisive.

Now I realize that President Obama must take every opportunity to make Republicans look bad while he can. To be honest, in the political environment, I didn't realize homosexual issues were at the top of America's agenda or concern. I suppose he needs to fire up his base after being a war-monger for the past few months? But since he mentioned "tolerance", I have to wonder what he means.

Now when he says, "we are all in it together", to what is he referring? Is he talking about the military and who should be allowed in the military? Perhaps he is talking about tolerating kids who eat potato chips or go to Wendy's for a burger and fries? Perhaps he is talking about tolerating those who want him out of office or those who disagree with his policies?

Perhaps he is not talking about tolerating at all. Perhaps he is talking about forced acceptance by the force of law of those who have different "values". So how does he accept my "values" when I believe God has clearly stated that sexual immorality is evil in all of its forms? Or does this acceptance only go one way?

We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot.

President Obama along with the Political elitists believe they have the right to set the framework of the debate over homosexuality. Notice that being tolerant = just, is also = equal. So now all things are equally valid? What is the basis of this claim? What is his form of argumentation? This is the beauty of the Left. They don't have to. Their morality is firmly planted in thin air.

I am often told that as a Prolifer, I am forcing a "wedge issue" upon other Americans and dividing Americans. Yet there are some things worth fighting for or against. Slavery was an evil worth fighting against. Alcohol during the Prohibition years [please watch PBS's current program on Prohibition] was not worth dying for. Yet I see the President of the United States creating a wedge issue by arguing for sexual immorality as being normal and something that should be accepted and is forcing by the Rule of Law an aberrant behavior as being normal.

I mean seriously. Different cultures have different foods and clothing and which days of the week to work and speak differently and use different idioms and so on and so forth. But would President Obama really call slavery in cultures that still practice it good cultures? Somehow I doubt it. So I guess Obama wants to divide us over whether or not those who are morally conservative will accept having sex with the same sex to be normal and just and equal.

I'll just quote Isaiah 5:

20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

PETA and Porn?

2011-09-29T19:15:00.000-07:00

OK, if I didn't see it I wouldn't believe it, but I accidentally came across this story on Yahoo News.

PETA to launch its own porn site: Does exploiting women promote animal rights?

So somehow, when someone starts watching the you-know-what, and gets all wound up, then bam! Show them how chickens are killed, will save the chickens? I can hear the jokes flying now. Perhaps that's the idea?

Traveling Faster Than Speed of Light?

2011-09-22T16:24:00.000-07:00

I realize I have been gone a long time from this blog, but it has been a very busy and fun summer. I have attended several of my kids' swim meets, gone camping several times in Colorado, done lots of dirt bike riding and even played some hockey the other day in CO Springs.

So today I am sifting through some news items and this story just jumps out at me. If you remember some time back, I was told evolution is simply a fact because we now "know" the genetic code. What I love about science is how it is constantly changing while claiming to be the ultimate source of knowledge. As the article says,

Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of physics.

Isn't that amazing? Well, what happened that has rocked the science world?

The science world was left in shock when workers at the world’s largest physics lab announced they had recorded subatomic particles travelling faster than the speed of light.

So if Albert Einstein could be wrong, is it possible that others could be wrong? Is it possible that science isn't the ultimate authority?

It will be interesting to see the ramifications of this. Of course, the problem for scientists will remain, for the problem at the core isn't the evidence, but the naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions that undergird the thinking of many. But when one actually thinks science is their ultimate authority, then one is blind to one's own false premises.

Judging Religion

2011-07-07T15:02:00.000-07:00

This past weekend I had the privilege of taking my family to South Dakota and visiting my good friend, Pastor Cory Kitch and his family. While we were there Pastor Cory had the opportunity of ministering to a transient, Matthew, who was trying to get to Washington State.

During our time with Matthew we discussed a wide variety of topics. Being that Cory is a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you can probably guess what one of the topics was. At one point I asked Matthew for his views and major objections against the Christian faith.

He first talked about his own personal experience that “verified” to him that he has been reincarnated from a past life. Then he explained to us that all religions are based upon the improving of our lives (I suppose like traveling around the country to different parties and not doing a day's work to support yourself?).

In an unrelated conversation I had recently on Face Book with a good friend, I was told I was being judgmental by arguing that Reverend Wright (President Obama's former pastor) is not a Christian. Now we argue and judge things to be right and wrong all the time. He'll play the Devil's advocate on abortion while I defend the Prolife position. He'll defend President Obama and health care while I argue against the President's position. He judges Glenn Beck as being a con artist when it comes to buying Gold from certain companies (Right or wrong that is his view). So why am I now being judgmental?

The answer to this question is quite simple. In both conversations, religion is completely subjective and private. Therefore to judge anyone on their religious experience or beliefs is tantamount to climbing into one's mind and judging their experience.

Religion to the common everyday man is simply outside the realm of normal means of knowledge. We know science is true because we supposedly verify our claims of knowledge. Even other fields of knowledge such as history are to some degree verifiable.

Yet the natural man can not be consistent in his worldview. It is interesting to me how I am told I should not be judgmental. Yet in order to explain to me that I am being judgmental, I am being judged by a religious worldview. The contradiction is so obvious and blatant, it never ceases to amaze me that the non-Christian doesn't see it, or perhaps he does and just suppresses that truth as he does all of truth that comes from his Creator.

Now another source for this problem is that though many Christians claim that the moral relativism of our non-Christian friends is bad for our culture, do we not in practice perpetuate the "private religion" in the way we preach the Gospel? How many churches proclaim the Gospel in the context of Jesus can save your marriage or Jesus can get you off of drugs or Jesus can help your kids with their homework, so on and so on. Then we in turn claim that Jesus is the only way. Only way to what? Having a better marriage? Statistically, Christians have just as high if not a higher rate of divorce. So I guess the only way to be worse than our non-Christian neighbors is use the Jesus formula?

As I attempted to explain to Matthew last weekend is that the reason all of man's religions are similar to one degree or another is that God's Law is written upon all our hearts. Due to our sinfulness, we twist all of God's truth. Hence the multiplicity of "revelations" (reincarnation or whatever) that come from the twisted hearts and minds of men.

We instead need the Revelation of God in history, not a private revelation from men. The Israelites have given to us the Gospel. Starting with Moses and God delivering the Israelites from Egypt and culminating in Jesus of Nazareth delivering sinners by dying and being raised from the dead. We now have the testimony of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. They point us to not our futile minds and thinking, but instead point us to the historical events and a Divine Person.

Therefore, let us learn from the Son of God and His Apostles what our true need is and the true teachings we ought to follow. And we must do this by using our minds and judging what is good, right and acceptable according to God's own revelation. As Peter states in one of his letters to the Church:

2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
2Pe 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
2Pe 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 8: Pastoral Concerns

2011-06-13T18:32:00.000-07:00

Pastoral Concerns

First, men need to understand the nature of original sin. We all need to understand the hopelessness of achieving righteousness or perfection in ourselves. The Bible plainly condemns and shuts the mouths of all men in their attempts to fulfill the Covenant of Works. It doesn’t matter what system men find themselves, whether it be Buddhism or Islam or Judaism or Mormonism or Roman Catholicism, all systems of works, no matter how much grace may accompany one’s attempts will fail in utter defeat.

We must understand that it is Christ who has fulfilled the Covenant of works in our place as our Substitute and as our Representative. It was Christ and Christ alone who accomplished the salvation of all men from Adam to the present. And it is through faith alone in Him that brings a man into right relations with God. Therefore, we must call all men, both Jew and Gentile, to repentance and faith in Christ.

The New Covenant is the ultimate fulfillment of the purposes of God in saving a people for Himself in Christ. This covenant is not for one group of people over against another. But as the Apostle Paul rightly declares, Christ has made one new man by uniting both Jews and Gentiles in one Covenant. Gentiles do not merely share in New Covenant blessings. Instead the New Covenant everywhere teaches that Gentiles along with their Jewish brothers are full members with all of the New Covenant blessings. The entire Old Testament was a shadow or a type of what was to come in Christ.

The question that arises is the nature of the Law written upon the hearts. The New Covenant as described in Hebrews 8 never distinguishes between Jew and Gentile. The Law is written upon the hearts of all believers. There is no such thing as a “Carnal Christian” or a Gentile who only has forgiveness of sins but does not repent of his sins. The early church is made of believers and is considered the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament. This is where starting with the New Testament’s description of the New Covenant is vital. We must not allow inferences from the Old Testament override the plain teaching of the New Testament. Jesus and the Apostles must be allowed by the power of the Holy Spirit to be the final interpreters of the Old Testament and its promises. If they say it is fulfilled, then we ought not to challenge it but understand how it is fulfilled in a proper way.

The people of God in the church are not an afterthought or some secret not revealed to us in the Old Testament. The Church of Jesus Christ was always in the mind of God as typified throughout the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New. Although in this present age Christians struggle with their sin, she is always able to look to and find solace in her perfect Redeemer, who has bought her with His own blood. She presently possesses the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of the Savior. She has been changed to be holy and to live holy in this world even with all of her abiding sin. Thanks be to God through Christ who has established His perfect Covenant that will never end and is completely unbreakable.

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 7

2011-06-12T19:48:00.000-07:00

Conclusion of the Arguments

Throughout the New Testament, starting with Christ himself, we see the New Covenant instituted for a people that Christ has chosen. It is Christ that is building His church. It is Christ that is the true Seed of Abraham both physically and spiritually. It is Christ who unites both Jews and Gentiles into one body. The New Testament everywhere speaks of the New Covenant as fulfilling the Old Testament types and shadows. To go back to a National Israel hermeneutic is to go backwards in redemptive history and miss the meaning of the promises given to the church in what Christ has done for His people.

We can see that how we start in our interpretive methods is important. Do we start with the New Testament and allow the Apostles to explain to us the nature of the Old Testament prophecies or do we practice an inconsistently applied method of inferences from an overly literal approach of the Old Testament being forced upon the New?

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 6: Hebrews 8

2011-06-11T17:46:00.000-07:00

Hebrews 8

The Dispensationalist hinges their argument that the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant is still yet future. The church was never prophesied to be in this covenant. But are we to understand that Israel does not include Gentiles in the New Covenant fully?

If there was ever a place to explain that this text was originally for Jews would not Hebrews 8 be the place? Instead, what we find is the author explaining that the promise of a New Covenant was established with the Church. Only inferences from a false hermeneutic can we force upon the text to be a separate fulfillment with National Israel in a future Millennium. Instead, what we see is the typological fulfillment of Israel in Christ, not a future covenant in some future Millennium. Even Dispensationalists recognize this to some extent. As Dr. Ice notes,

“We have seen how the New Covenant will be fulfilled for Israel, but an often ask question is does this covenant relate in any way to the church? A New covenant is mentioned a number of times in reference to the church in the New Testament. It appears to be the basis for the forgiveness of sins and a spiritual dynamic that is not just reserved for the nation of Israel.”[1]

But due to their presuppositions they miss the obvious. As Vlach explains in “What Is Dispensationalism?,

“…the spiritual sense of the title [seed of Abraham] does not take over the physical sense to such an extent that the physical seed of Abraham is no longer related to the biblical covenants.”[2]

Of course this misses the point. Jesus is the physical seed of Abraham in which He unites a people, both Jew and Gentile, into one particular people. This is why the writer to the Hebrews makes no distinction among member of the church as to their status in the New Covenant. All are equally in the New Covenant. As John Owen exegetes in his masterful commentary on the book of Hebrews the New Covenant does come to the Jews first,

“So Peter tells them, in his first sermon, that ‘the promise was to them and their children’ who were then present, that is, the house of Judah; and ‘to all that were afar off,’ that is, the house of Israel in their dispersions, Acts 2:39.”[3]

But then goes on to explain that Gentiles are also equally in the New Covenant.

“And this was all the privilege that was now left to them; for the partition-wall was now broken down, and all obstacles against the Gentiles taken out of the way. To that end this house of Israel and house of Judah may be considered in two ways: [1.] As that people who were the whole entire posterity of Abraham. [2.] As they were typical, and spiritually symbolic of the whole church of God.”[4]

And later on the same page,

[2.] In the second sense the whole church of elect believers is intended under these denominations, being typified by them. These are they alone, being one made of two, namely Jews and Gentiles, with whom the covenant is really made and established, and to whom the grace of it is actually communicated. For all those with whom this covenant is made will as really have the law of God written in their hearts, and their sins pardoned, according to the promise of it, as the people of old were brought into the land of Canaan by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham.”[5]

Now the objection raised at this point by the Dispensationalist is the same as that of some paedo-baptists. The New Covenant cannot be fulfilled since the promise in verse 11 seems to require a future fulfillment. However, Owen also deals with this objection. After much sound argumentation too long for space here, Owen states,

“But in the New covenant, there being an express promise of an internal, effectual teaching by the Spirit of God, by writing His law in our hearts, without which all outward teaching is useless and ineffectual, it is here denied to be of any use;”[6]

In other words, Owen is explaining that we would have a blatant contradiction. The writer to the Hebrews is saying this covenant is established not in part, but in whole. Therefore we must understand these words properly. We must allow for the purposeful intention of the New Testament to keep a tension of the Now verses the Not Yet aspects of the phases not only of the Kingdom, but the fulfillment of the promises of the New Covenant. For both the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God as expressed among God’s people are intimately united.

Fred Malone also deals with this argument against paedo-baptists,

“If one takes the mention of Israel and Judah with strict literalism from Old Testament priority over New Testament revelation, then one is driven to believe that the New covenant is meant only for the Jewish nation in the New Testament. This is exactly the position of the older Dispensationalists. They concede to Gentiles the forgiveness of sins from the New Covenant but rarely mention, if at all, the law written on the heart for them.”[7]

[1] Ice, “Covenants and Dispensations” http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/covenants-and-dispensations-part-7

[2] Vlach, “What Is Dispensationalism?” http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html

[3] Owen, From Adam To Christ, An Exposition of Hebrews 8:6-13, page 236

[4] Ibid., page 236-7

[5] Ibid., page 237-8

[6] [6] Owen, From Adam To Christ, An Exposition of Hebrews 8:6-13, page 290

[7] Malone, Baptism of Disciples Alone, 84

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 5: Only Two

2011-06-09T15:40:00.000-07:00

Only Two

According to Covenant Theology there are only two basic covenants, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. It is understood that the Covenant of Grace is an over-arching covenant that is expressed in sub covenants throughout the history of redemption. As Walter Chantry wrote,

“God does not have multiple schemes for blessing sinners. He does not frantically crank out covenants in reaction to human decisions, until one happen to work well, thanks to man’s accepting it. From eternity past there was but one well-conceived way for sinners to be recovered. All covenants since Eden embody this one divine plan of redemption through a divinely appointed Mediator.”[1]

The New Covenant is the ultimate fulfillment of the Covenant of Redemption and there are no further Covenants or promises needing to be fulfilled. God Promises the New Covenant through the promises found throughout the old Testament. As Chantry also states,

“Even the availability of the Covenant Grace must not be misunderstood. When the Lord spoke Genesis 3:15, it was not because he saw with surprise and frustration that the earth was perverted in sin. God did not decide to give men a second chance with some wholly different alternate plan for blessing. Once the Lord instituted the first covenant becomes woven into the second.”[2]

As also noted by Chantry, a man may only be in one of these two Covenants.

“If you have not trusted Christ (God’s mediator for sinners) you are at this moment under the Covenant of Works. All of us were born in Adam, that is, under the divine arrangement made with the entire human race. At the judgment seat God will demand that the terms of this covenant be fulfilled. Multitudes are now living under the Covenant of Works. Only those who have entered the Covenant of Grace have escaped the hopelessness of being still in Adam, born guilty, born under a curse.”

Malone also argues that there is not some kind of third position with respect to the two covenants. A person is either fully in the Covenant of Works or he/she is in the Covenant of Grace which is now expressed in the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ. In arguing against the paedo-baptist position Malone wrote,

Marcel actually says that the baptized children of believers are removed from the Covenant of Works, are no longer under the condemnation of God, and are restored to an ability to decide for or against the covenant blessings. It is as if they are a third category of people neither under the Covenant of works nor full participants of the life of the Covenant of Grace [ie: New Covenant].”[3]

The point Malone makes is equally applicable to the Dispensationalist. As noted above, the Dispensationalist wants to make Gentiles to participate in some lesser way in the New Covenant. It is as if there is a third category. Yet when we allow the New Testament to interpret for us a proper view of the Covenants, we see this is not possible.

[1] Walter Chantry, “The Covenantss of Works and of Grace” http://study.founders.org/covenants-fa10/mediafilt/covenants101.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone, 166

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 4: CT Assumptions

2011-06-07T17:17:00.000-07:00

Covenant Theology Assumptions

It must be stated with clarity up front that Covenant Theology starts with the assumption that the New Testament is the final interpreter of the Old Testament. It also understands that the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of Scripture in keeping with the principle of the “analogy of faith”. Scripture interprets Scripture and each successive Covenant has the right to define itself. As Fred Malone states in his book, The Baptisms of Disciples Alone,

“The New Testament is the authoritative exposition of what the Holy Spirit meant in the Old Testament prophectic passages. As written revelation, it carries a higher weight and priority than a supposed good and necessary inference deduced from the Old Testament.”[1]

By this hermeneutic, Malone communicates that any inferences that one may see, such as National Israel being the primary recipient of the Promises, must bow to the clear understanding of the Apostle’s interpretation of the prophecies concerning Israel and the New Covenant.

[1] Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone, 35

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 3: Dispensationalism and the New Covenant

2011-06-03T18:39:00.000-07:00

Dispensationalism and the New Covenant

Dr. Thomas Ice states,

“The New Covenant provides for the yet future spiritual regeneration of Israel in preparation for the millennial kingdom. This is an unconditional covenant and is made between the Lord and the nation of Israel and has not yet been enacted for the nation of Israel.”[1]

Professor Larry D. Pettegrew, Vice President of Shepherds Theological Seminary, states in his article The New Covenant,

“For Israel the New Covenant promises her transformation through providing her a new heart, her final and permanent forgiveness, and the consummation of her relationship with the Lord. Through Israel God will also bless the Gentiles because of this covenant.”[2]

As can be seen, the approach of the Dispensationalist is to see that the original prediction of the New Covenant as seen in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36 was meant for National Israel only and appears to yet be future! Any role Gentiles have in the New Covenant is simply by proxy. Gentiles are blessed but not full members of the New Covenant. As Pettegrew says on page 253 of the same article,

In parallel passages, the parties involved [in the Covenant] are always with the Lord and the nation of Israel. Some blessings relate to the Gentile nations, but even these are ‘spill-over” blessings from Israel.[3]

Due to the literal approach and starting with the Old Testament interpreting the New Testament, it is easy to see why this understanding pervades Dispensationalism. But also due to their literal approach, a claim is made that the New Covenant is not truly fulfilled yet. The argument is strikingly similar to the paedo-baptist interpretation of Hebrews 8:8-12 in order to get around the current complete fulfillment of the New Covenant. Dr. Ice concludes his article, Covenants and Dispensations,

“If anyone attempts to say that the New Covenant is being fulfilled today, during the current church age, through the regeneration of the holy Spirit, then it would mean that we should not evangelize any more, that every Jew would be saved, and that we should have the Law of God written on our hearts. This is not the case within the church today.”[4]

Although John Darby’s understanding may have been different in some respects, he agrees with the principle that the New Covenant was for National Israel in the Millennium.

“This covenant of the letter is made with Israel, not with us; but we get the benefit of it.”[5]

Charles Ryrie states something similar as cited by Grover Gunn,

This interpretation holds that the one new covenant has two aspects, one which applies to Israel, and one which applies to the church. These have been called the realistic and spiritual aspects of the covenant, but both aspects comprise essentially one covenant based on the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.”[6]

I find it interesting that most of these men probably practice taking the Lord's Supper. Keep in mind the words of Christ:

"This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

What does this mean, if we are not actual partakers of the New Covenant?!

[1] Dr. Thomas Ice, “Covenants and Dispensations” http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/covenants-and-dispensations-part-7

[2] Larry Pettegrew, “The New Covenant”, page 251, http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj10q.pdf

[3] Ibid., page 253

[4] Dr. Thomas Ice, “Covenants and Dispensations (part 4)” http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/covenants-and-dispensations-part-7

[5] As cited by Grover Dunn, “Dispensationalism: The New covenant, Part 2” http://groverdunn/andrew/disp05.htm

[6] As cited by Grover Dunn, “Dispensationalism: The New covenant, Part 2” http://groverdunn/andrew/disp05.htm

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 2: Hermeneutics

2011-06-02T17:46:00.000-07:00

Hermeneutics

It is important to understand that both Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology attempt to take the bible seriously. Both groups believe in the full inspiration and use the historical grammatical approach. The difference lies in the presuppositional approach to the Bible itself. As Michael Vlach states citing Feinberg

“Nondispensationalists begin with NT teaching as having priority and then go back to the OT. Dispensationalists often begin with the OT, but wherever they begin they demand that the OT be taken on its own terms rather than reinterpreted in the light of the NT.”[1]

These methodologies or approaches to the Bible are the fundamental causes as to why men differ in their understanding of Israel and affect our understanding of the nature of the New Covenant.

[1] Feinberg as cited by Michael Vlach, “Core Characteristics of Dispensationalism” http://www.theologicalstudies.org/core_dispensationalism.html

Dispensationalism: A Critical Look At The New Covenant part 1: Thesis

2011-06-01T20:26:00.000-07:00

Last fall, I took a class with Founders on Covenant Theology. It is not one of my better papers, but I thought I'd share it.

Thesis

Over the past century a relatively new system of theology has arisen and has since gained great acceptance among conservative American Evangelicals. Dispensationalism, which first began among The Brethren movement in England in the early 19^th century, came about due to the study of John Nelson Darby while studying Isaiah 32. His conclusion was, “Israel, in a future dispensation, would enjoy earthly blessings that were different from the heavenly blessings experienced by the church.”[1]

The Dispensational viewpoint was popularized among Evangelicals initially through the Bible Conference Movement beginning in the 1870s and later through the Scofield reference bible. After War World I, many schools were formed to promote this new system. One of the most well known is Dallas Theological Seminary.[2] Over the years, the system has changed and progressed through at least three stages, Classical, Traditional and Progressive.[3]

Although there are significant differences among the views of Progressive Dispensationalism from the Classical and Traditional, they all share similar views that the Christian church is distinct from National Israel. This is due to the presuppositional interpretive approach to the Bible, especially in how we understand the covenants through the Bible. As Ken Gentry states,

“A revision of the Israel/Church distinction, allowing that Israel and the Church are two phases of the one people of God. Classic Dispensationalists argued for a radical distinction between Israel and the Church…”[4]

Dispensationalism arose due to at least a sub-biblical view of the covenants, especially the Davidic Covenant and the New Covenant. Because of its overly literal presuppositions that one must interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, the Dispensationalist sees the church as an unpredicted mystery that was not known until the kingdom was rejected by National Israel. As Pastor James Healan states,

“The Church is a mystery (Eph. 3:6; Col. 1:26-27) not predicted in the Old Testament. Nothing indicates that it was part of anything “prior or will be part of something future other than itself—the Body of Christ.[5]”

This understanding also directly affects the separation of the “Kingdom of God” from the church and is only fully applied to National Israel.[6] The purpose of this paper is to look at the New Testament’s understanding of the New Covenant in contrast with Dispensationalism as a whole.

[1] Michael J. Vlach, “What Is Dispensationalism?” http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html.

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology.

[4] Ken Gentry, “Progressive Dispensationalism” http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Dispensationalism/Progressive-Dispensationalism/

[5] James Healan, “Is Dispenstionalism Progressing or Regressing?” http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1043794756.html

[6] Ibid.

Was Judas Really That Bad? part 4: Son of Destruction

2011-05-30T08:22:00.000-07:00

Now every time we have this discussion, I have to point out the obvious. Please notice that Jesus refers to Judas by two different terms.

First, Jesus tells the disciples "one of you will betray Me". Now I realize that all of the disciples in some sense betrayed Jesus. But Jesus tells Peter that Peter would deny Him. In fact, Jesus explains that the Shepherd would be struck and the sheep would be scattered by quoting Zecharia 13:7. This was after Judas had left and was separate from the rest of the disciples. In this case, Peter most certainly represents the rest of the disciples.

So let me make this clear. Jesus never says that the disciples would betray Him. Only one receives that label. He also makes clear that He prayed for Peter and the rest of the disciples to be restored. Once again, we must ask if Jesus' prayer must also be applied to the Betrayer Judas? The answer should be obvious.

Now to the issue of the phrase, "son of perdition" or "destruction".

John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

We must see again that Jesus never calls the other disciples "son of Destruction". He only refers to Judas with that title. But what does he mean by it? Well, let's take a look. After Jesus explains that Judas would betray him Him he makes a very troubling statement.

Mat 26:24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."

Yes, it would have been better for Judas to not have been born! The horror of such a thought is incredible. Jesus gives us information about the destiny of Judas. In a note about Matthew 1:1 and 11:19, commentator Barnes offers this insight about the phrases when "son of..." is used.

The term son was given by the Hebrews to those who possessed the character described by the word or name following. Thus, sons of Belial - those who possessed his character; children of wisdom those who were wise, Mat_11:19. Thus Judas is called a son of perdition because he had the character of a destroyer. He was a traitor and a murderer. And this shows that he who knew the heart regarded his character as that of a wicked man one whose appropriate name was that of a son of perdition.

Again, please note Jesus is making a clear break and distinction between Judas and the rest of the disciples. Jesus is making and adopting the disciples to be "sons of God" [John 1:12] through His saving work except Judas.

This idea is similar throughout all of Scripture. See Genesis 3 and the promised Seed.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

Perhaps it truly bothers us that one could be so close to Jesus and yet be ordained a "son of destruction". Perhaps it bothers us that Jesus did not pray for Judas as He did the other disciples. Perhaps it bothers us that God has such freedom to save whom He will, and we do not. Perhaps we are bothered by a Scripture and Word of God that confronts our traditions that we so strongly desire to cling to. Perhaps it is all of these things and more.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, I pray that we would think logically and clearly about such issues. But even more importantly, I pray that we would listen to God's Word with repentant hearts. For in fighting the truths of Scripture, are we not all doing the very things the Disciples did that last night? We all think we would never deny our Lord. But what about His Word?

Was Judas That Bad: part 3: Jesus' Intercession

2011-05-28T11:01:00.000-07:00

Another passage that is often cited in defense of Judas having some kind of freewill to truly repent and come to Christ is from John 17, which is Jesus' final prayer at the Last Supper.

While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Now I think contextually, we may couple this with the events that happen later in the night when Jesus insured that His disciples would not suffer arrest and the commentary by John.

Joh 18:9 This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken: "Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one."

One argument is that Jesus did not lose Judas in the sense that Judas was still saved even though Jesus lost him during the night. In other words, Jesus was merely talking about the disciples and the events of the night, and not their souls.

As interesting as this argument may seem, it is to connect these verses together in a way that was not originally intended. John is making an application of Jesus' promise from John 6 and John 17. However, to deny that there is any salvific sense to these texts is to go beyond their original meaning.

In John 17:3, Jesus is praying for His disciples that they may have eternal life. This is then connected to their having received His word in verse 8. He also prays for them to be kept from the world while living in the world. To think this is mere protection from events and not their souls from the evils of this world is to miss the salvific sense of verse 11.

Joh 17:11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

These Disciples were to be kept in the Father's Name. They are kept because of the perfect union between Father and Son. Jesus is not praying for one group of men while the Father chooses another. Jesus is not trying to accomplish the Father's will and failing to do so with Judas. As we see in Jesus' own words, He did accomplish all the Father sent Him to do.

17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.

So we must ask the obvious question. Do we really believe in an all powerful Savior who actually accomplishes His Father's will? Perhaps a little mediation on the perfect work of Christ could be considered from Hebrews.

Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

So why did Jesus not pray and intercede for Judas' soul? In the next post, we must look at the phrase, "Son of Destruction".

Judas That Bad?: Part 2: He Hanged Himself

2011-05-27T15:17:00.000-07:00

The first thing I need to deal with is the primary argument from Matthew 27:3. This seems to be the most quoted verse in defense of the idea that Judas truly repented of his sin and was saved.

Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders,

Now on the face of it, the phrase "changed his mind", which is also translated by the King James as, "repented himself" and the CEV translation renders this as, "he was sorry", seems to lend itself in our American thinking that Judas was truly sorry. Therefore Judas is now in heaven.

The problem here is with our American thinking about human nature and ability. We seem to think that a man's conscience which is pricked somehow means that the Holy Spirit intends to do something salvific. Listen to Paul's words from 2 Corinthians 7 as the Holy Spirit has given them to us.

2Co 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that you were grieved, but that you were grieved to repentance. For you were grieved according to God, that you might suffer loss in nothing by us.
2Co 7:10 For the grief according to God works repentance to salvation, not to be regretted. But the grief of the world works death.

Notice that the Spirit of God explains to us that natural man and the spiritual man both may feel sorrow. Shouldn't that be obvious? This comports with our everyday experience. But the assumption by many is that all men are capable of working up in themselves a true repentant heart, or it assumes that God gives everyone an equal chance through some kind of prevenient grace. This is all just assumed.

Anecdotally, just the other day, I had to assist a female that was involved in a car accident. She felt extremely guilty about what she had done. She probably will never do whatever she was doing that caused her to have the accident again. Yet she is still fully culpable for what she had done and will pay for it via insurance or whatever. The range of human ability and emotions is wide, but to assume it is able to produce within itself godly sorrow is simply, again, an assumption that we shall see does not fit with all of the Biblical text.

We must understand that there is a godly sorrow that leads to repentance of salvation. It is a Spirit borne sorrow that causes a person to look outside of themselves and to Christ. Is this what Judas did? Let's read the rest of the verse.

Mat 27:5 And tossing the silver pieces into the temple, he left. And going away he hanged himself.

In this text we see the guilt ridden man try to do what is right. But he recognizes it is too late. There is simply nothing in the text that warrants for us to believe he repented with godly sorrow. There is nothing in the text that hints he looked to God for salvation. Instead, we have the simple statement that "he hanged himself." The text, unlike all of the other Disciples, leaves an extremely negative taste in your mouth. As the old testament states, "Cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree."

Was Judas Really That Bad?

2011-05-26T15:41:00.000-07:00

Every couple of years, the local churches headed by the local Methodist church of Scott County put on an Easter Pageant. And every couple of years the conversation about Judas inevitably comes up. Did he go to heaven when he died or not?

This year's pageant was no exception. It is kind of a strange thing. It is like a mini discussion or debate that seems to pass by in an almost nonchalant manner. I think mainly because the person playing Judas certainly wants to know, but also because it is probably one of the saddest stories in the bible. When you think about it, it is a deeply troubling account. Not only are we curious, I think an even deeper reason we want to excuse or justify Judas in some way is that the accounts of his betrayal strike at the heart of our theology.

What I mean is simple. I think we intuitively know that Jesus was not merely predicting the future. Jesus not only predicted Judas' betrayal, but he also predicts several events during the next night and few days. He seems to do so in such a way that the events are ordained by God and serve His purpose. So on the one hand, the passion accounts look like perfectly normal events in the sense that all of the actions are consistent with what men might do. On the other hand, the passion accounts record the events in such a way as if every thing was "going as planned". For instance, Jesus said to Judas,

"What you are about to do, do it quickly." [John 13:27]

I don't know how long I will spend on this, but in case you're thinking, "Why bother?" I think this is a good discussion because it will make us look closer at the Biblical accounts concerning Judas, and it will also force us to reconsider how we approach Scripture. For the Traditions that bog us down in allowing these accounts to speak clearly are massive. Perhaps by challenging some of these Traditions, we may see the truth about mankind in general and ourselves in particular.

The Right To Choose Your Gender

2011-05-24T19:32:00.000-07:00

This article on parents raising a "genderless baby" is just fascinating. When the baby was born, the parents decided to perhaps share weight, length but not to share...everything.

That, however, is it. When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to the rest of their friends and family that stated: 'We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).'

So freedom is even choosing your own sex. As dad later says,

The couple believe they are releasing Storm from the constraints society imposes on males and females. They claim children can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very young age.

Now there are plenty of aspects of the article that are troubling, but I just have to ask, "Is it really that difficult to accept how God made you?"

What about the created order? Think about it for a moment. The parents of this child did something. A male and a female came together in a way that is obviously a part of the created order and produced a child. Now to ignore the obvious truth that we are not able to change that (I know about all of the technological arguments that say otherwise or the feminists who would argue strenuously but their silliness aside...) is to further suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. This kind of thinking is just further evidence of the great lengths mankind will go in their rebellion against their Creator.

As for the children making meaningful decisions, perhaps we should ask the child if he is mature enough to think his parents are fit for parenting? I mean seriously. Anyone who has had children or was once a child, knows that this statement is completely bogus. This kind of thinking is simply trying to help people believe they live in a world of fantasy in which they may control every aspect of their own destiny in an autonomous and absolute manner. Yet it doesn't take much to look down and know if you are a boy or girl. You can't control that any more than you may wish away the fact a tsunami wiped out a bunch of Japanese people recently. You can't wish away the reality that a hundred people or more were wiped off the face of the earth Sunday by a tornado. I wonder if these parents ever look at the world around them. When they see male and female dogs come together in that sexual way, do they ever impose the obvious upon the dogs, or do they allow the dogs the freedom to live in a world to choose which one is male and female?

Why force the boundaries of boy or girl? Why not open the choice to species. Perhaps the child will choose to be a dolphin.

The article seems to say that Mr. Stocker had some kind of epiphany.

At first it was just a thought. Then Mr Stocker found an infamous 1978 book in his school library called X: A Fabulous Child's Story, about a genderless child named X who faces bullying head on, proving that he or she is well-adjusted.

There you have it. Those who can face bullying are well adjusted. Never mind that serial killers think themselves "well adjusted". In fact, they often feel great about themselves. Consider this statement from this article.

You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.

You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.

Now I am not saying that this child will be a psychopath. What I am saying is that simply because someone stands up to bullying does not make a person healthy. Yes, there is a such thing as false guilt. But that is not always the case.

What this kind of child rearing really does is offer a worldview in which there are no parameters or moral framework. And yet this is being done in the name of a philosophy that while saying the world is what we make of it, it also say the Christian worldview is wrong. Yet how can that be?

To put it another way, could this child freely choose to say that he embraces Jesus Christ and His moral law as absolute? Somehow I doubt the child's freedom will be allowed to be that free. This is the problem with living in a fantasy world. It will eventually come crashing down.

Whose Revelation: Hawking's or God's?

2011-05-16T17:59:00.000-07:00

I have always been fascinated by how much men know about things they can't possible know, especially things pertaining to the afterlife. In this article on Yahoo News, the brilliant Stephen Hawking explain to us merely evolved ape men how the "after life is a fairy story". The article states,

But in 2010, Hawking told Diane Sawyer that "science will win" in a battle with religion "because it works."

Now by what epistemology does he start to know that science works? Or to put in Christian terms, by what source of revelation does he know what he claims to know about science? Well, I have no doubt he would give some sort of pragmatic answer. But you see, he gets to assume presuppositions and never has to defend them. He is making claims of knowledge that he can't possibly know within a merely scientific framework because there is no such thing as a merely scientific framework.

Believe it or not, Christians like science. But hey, even those who have never heard of Christianity or atheism have used science for millennia. So this statement is just pure arrogance. The next paragraph quote Hawking's real thought about religion.

"What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

Now let's break this down. First, how does he get the authority to tell us anything about his views of God. To put it another way, if he believes religion is just merely man-made, then isn't this just another version since he is a mere man? Simply because he has a brilliant mind about scientific matters, does not mean he has the answers. He is presupposing quite a bit to get to his conclusions.

The last statement is a far stretch. Why is it impossible to say that God cares for man simply because he lives on a tiny blue ball? Who are we to tell the Creator how He is to function or how He creates the universe? Yes, even the Psalmist stated, "Who is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?" But this is in a far greater context than the mere creation. David is comparing his sinful self to an Almighty Creator. But the middle sentence is a claim he makes due to his atheistic worldview.

They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship.

He simply assumes yet another revelatory power of knowing that all religions make God in the image of man. As true as that may be, how does he know this? Did he scientifically verify this? By what methods did use to come to this conclusion? It should be obvious that he assumes that anyone who lives outside of his modern scientific world (which is really a philosophically driven world) is an outdated moron.

Hawking's latest book, "The Grand Design," challenged Isaac Newton's theory that the solar system could not have been created without God. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going

Again, how does he know spontaneous creation accounts for the creation around us? This is the biggest problem with atheism. It simply has to assume that things may come into existence due to an a prior commitment to its anti-God starting point. No one lives their lives in this fashion. When Hawking saw the first wheel chair, it never dawned upon his fertile mind that it spontaneously generated. In fact, he never even questioned it has a designer and builder. He simply assumed it. He could nothing else. It is not even something he may argue for or against. He has to just assume it. Yet when it comes to his own hands or eyes or DNA, all of a sudden he abandons the world in which he must live to one that is man-made. In other words, he leaps to a world invented by his own creative man-made revelation. The only thing that connects these worlds together or at least holds his schizophrenic thoughts together is the truth that he must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make his imaginary world work at all.

It is a shame that Hawking and the rest of mankind seeks revelation outside of God's Word. In doing so, he has abandoned the only source to true meaning in this life and the next. In the last paragraph he answers the "meaning of life" question and offers what in essence is nothing.

So if everyone is destined to power-down like computers at the end of their lives, what should humans do to lend meaning to their experience?

"We should seek the greatest value of our action," Hawking told the paper.

There you have it. Your life will mean something because the prophet Stephen Hawking has said so, if you will but follow his revelation and commands. Nothing plus nothing still equals nothing. Hawking, who by his own admission is a nobody in this universe, has given us nothing in order for us to feel something of value.

Slut-Walk Protests

2011-05-08T21:14:00.000-07:00

SlutWalk protests must be the new thing that bored people need to protest. As is stated in this article, a comment by a police officer has

"inspired a march in Toronto last month that drew more than 3,000 people, as well as SlutWalks since then in Dallas, Asheville, North Carolina, and Ottawa, Ontario."

Now it seems to me the original context of the quote by the officer wasn't really sanctifying the idea that raping sluts is acceptable in the remotest way. Supposedly the officer said something to the effect "that women should avoid dressing like 'sluts' to avoid being raped or victimized". So the article states the reason for their protests.

"The event is in protest of a culture that we think is too permissive when it comes to rape and sexual assault," said Siobhan Connors, 20, of Lynn, Massachusetts, another Boston organizer. "It's to bring awareness to the shame and degradation women still face for expressing their sexuality ... essentially for behaving in a healthy and sexual way."

Aside from the silly assumption that cops think it is OK to rape slutty women, perhaps we could see his comments in a different light. Would anyone deny that it might not be towards one's favor to flash a lot of high dollar cash in a public place and then walk down a dark alley. I mean really. No one would say it is OK to mug the guy with cash simply because he flashed it about.

Now of course one might say it is immoral to be arrogant and to be so self-centered, therefore he got his just desserts. It is simply being pompous and arrogant. So this flashing of cash behavior is in a different category. As we know from the quote from the article, sexuality has no moral dimension. So in other words, we have to grant their false premise, that being sexually immoral is healthy and normal, and that simple common sense advise, don't dress or behave in a way that might aggravate a potential situation, is bad. And if anyone disagrees, you're a mean spirited bigot. Why? Because the Slut-Paraders say so.

Another problem with this nonsensical argument is that everyone knows men are far more protective of women than women when it comes to rape. Lawyers know that when picking a jury pool in a rape case, the more women you have, the more likely they will think "slut". While the men are far more likely to think, "What if this were my daughter".

And of course there is the "self-righteous" argument. It is true that people may become Pharisaical. I have no doubt that when Jesus went to the tax-collectors and sinners, he was viewed as "unclean". Yet Jesus did offer the forgiveness of sins and called men to repentance. He was a holy man and called men to holiness (perhaps not the kind of holiness legalistic people desire, but I digress). So the Pharisaical argument may be true, it is not necessarily an argument that proves anything.

But in the end, this is showing a far deeper problem in our culture. We live in a culture that literally has no moral compass and is unable to think logically and clearly and reasonably. Please do not misunderstand. Rape is a crime that needs to be punished. But on what moral basis do these crowds protest "advise" from an officer when there's probably an abortion clinic just down the street that is murdering little children. Now there's something to protest.

Here's Something You Ought To Know About Intelligent Design

2011-05-07T16:15:00.000-07:00

Whatyououghttoknow.com has done a fair job on the creation/evolution debate in the classroom debate.

My True Need

2011-04-19T19:07:00.000-07:00

Once again, I was reminded of man's desperate need...the Gospel.

Last night, being on call for EMS, I responded to a "motorcycle accident" that came over my pager. I quickly responded to the Ambulance to be greeted by many other EMTs who were very concerned. These other EMTs were not just concerned because it was a motorcycle accident. They were concerned because they were fairly certain it involved a friend.

Prior to the page, our current EMS class was just registered to take their state tests. The man who helped was (I'm not certain of his exact title) a well known EMS teacher in south-west Kansas. He had just left the building 10 minutes earlier. As a teen age driver turned in front of him causing a collision, and life came to an end quickly.

I am constantly hearing about how the Gospel can change our lives, and it can. I am constantly hearing about how God wants to save your marriage or how the Gospel can help you get off of drugs or alcohol or how the gospel can help you with your job, school or homework. Yet all of this misses the real need of man.

Bad marriages, drugs and etc, are mere fruits of a far deeper problem. Sin & Death! Sin and Death have consumed the souls of men. As Sin infiltrates a man's life, it bears its evil fruit which leads to Death. As sin enters a man's marriage. Eventually, the marriage dies. Death consumes everything sin touches. As Sin begins to express itself in drugs and alcohol, Death follows. It reveals itself in forms of dying relationships. It reveals itself in abuse against God's image bearers till the image bearer lies down in the grave.

The Death that I witnessed last evening has, as I said, reminded me of our true need. We don't need heaven or a good job or a good morality or a nice home and good parents or whatever one may think of. We need something far greater.

This Holy Week, Christians around the world will be listening to sermons about the Cross. Where one man lived a Life, a Holy Life, a Perfect Life, a Righteous Life, a Life that was perfectly pleasing to God. But even more than that, we will hear about how this One Man performed what Luther called "The Great Exchange".

Nearly two-thousand years ago, the man, Jesus Christ, bore God's wrath in behalf of His church, a church that was yet to even be formed. The man, Jesus of Nazareth, was crucified in order that the punishment due to our sin would be taken in our behalf. He suffered the Death that I so much deserved.

On Sunday, we will celebrate the prize. We will glory in the one who has done something no one has yet to truly understand. We will celebrate the gift of Eternal Life. Death no longer has a hold of me or any true Christian. Life has entered our hearts because of a historical event, the Resurrection of this same Jesus..

As I think about that man's corpse lying on the highway, I am solemnly reminded of my true need. I am ever thankful that I possess the prize. One day I will hold that prize in all of its fullness. For today I only have that prize by faith. One day, as certainly as He was raised from the dead, I will possess Him face to face.

Ponder Your Path: Make Your Calling and Election Certain

2011-04-03T09:35:00.000-07:00

I have been blessed with a pastor that is able to preach well. Two weeks ago he preached a sermon from the text of Proverbs 4:26.

Ponder the path of your feet; then all of your ways will be certain.

I highly recommend this sermon to you. Download or listen here.

Dr. Mohler On CTC

2011-04-01T21:11:00.000-07:00

I know many Baptists wonder how can Baptists fellowship with Confessional Presbyterians, but it does happen. Southern Baptist Seminary President, Albert Mohler, recently appeared a guest on Reformed Forum's Christ the Center's podcast with WTS President, Peter Lillback. Listen here.

During part of the conversation, both men were asked about stereo types that modern Baptists and Presbyterians have of one another. The discussion is most helpful. But what is really helpful is that both Presidents had to go through difficult times of restoring the rightful place of Scripture in their respective institutions. Although some have called the SBC cleansing a "witch hunt" (and I have no doubt that happened), it was a much needed cleasing. I am thankful that there are men such as Al Mohler who are willing to stand for the truth.

Dr. White On American Apologists

2011-03-19T12:03:00.000-07:00

Being a member of a local church is fundamental for the Christian life. I thought this video, although dealing with apologetics per se, speaks a lot to American individualistic thinking.

Watch video here.

Psalm 60

2011-03-13T14:35:00.000-07:00

I am sitting here this afternoon reading Psalm 60. In light of recent events in Japan this text is quite powerful. Although the text is primarily about Israel, the application I think should be obvious. Here are the beginning verses.

O God, you have rejected us, broken our defenses;

you have been angry; oh, restore us.

²You have made the land to quake; you have torn it open;

repair its breaches, for it totters.

³ You have made your people see hard things;

you have given us wine to drink that made us stagger. 4 You have set up a banner for those who fear you,

that they may flee to itfrom the bow.

Selah

Yet even in the midst of trouble God promises to bring about man's deliverance, and ultimately He has done so in Christ.

The End Is Always Near, But Definitely Not On May 21st

2011-03-12T10:20:00.000-08:00

Several days ago I was reminded of Harold Camping's date setting of Christ's return to be May 21 of this year. Of course, we all know this is phony baloney and has been done myriads of times before, including Camping himself in the early 90s. Yet this sort of thing will just keep happening till the end of this present evil age.

In light of recent events in Japan, my concern is for those who would be fooled by such predictions. In the book, The Case For Amillenialism, by Kim Riddlebarger, the author reminds us that earth quakes are part of the signs throughout the inter-advental age (that would be now and between the comings of Christ). That nation would rise against nation, that there would be false teachers and false prophets and so forth.

In Psalm 148, the Holy Spirit testifies to us that God created the heavens and the earth to remain in His purposes and to be established forever. Yet during events such as the tsunami in Japan, we see the holiness of God and of our deepest need. We do not need a social gospel that attempts to save our economy or help make bad sinners into better sinners. Our ultimate need is not to have a better marriage or raise good kids. We don't need a gospel that tries to make our planet a greener planet or salvation from a fraudulent global warming hoax.

As the Psalmist states in Psalm 102,

For I eat ashes like bread and mingle tears with my drink, because of your indignation and anger; for you have taken me up and thrown me down. My days are like an evening shadow; I wither away like grass.

Yet the Holy Spirit tells us about the Son,

Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end. The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you.

In conclusion, on the one hand, do not be fooled into self-deception that God's wrath is not being revealed around you because of false teachers and prophets attempting to gather cultic power unto themselves over the people of God. On the other hand, do not miss the plain revelation of God's wrath against sin in this world. As my friend Pastor Paul reminds up on his recent comments about Japan by quoting Luke 13,

“There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Let us all turn to the only hope for Mankind, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ellen Leverett

2011-03-12T09:48:00.000-08:00

There are some people that you meet in this life that you consider a good friend. You may not know the person overly well, and yet you feel as though you do. You may not see that person very often, but when you do, you speak as though no time has passed by. You laugh and tell stories and catch up without the feeling that you're catching up. You feel as close to this person as you would your own brother or sister.

Ellen Leverett was one of those friends. Today is a day where we mourn the loss of that friend. At the age of 52, she lost her battle with cancer and in the Providence of Jesus, He decided to take her this past Wednesday. She has now entered her rest and is most certainly present with our Lord.

This morning's funeral/memorial service was a fantastic testimony to Ellen's faith in her Lord. Her husband and also another one of those "friends" stood up and gave a testimony about her faith in the resurrection of Christ and His people. He then turned and used the opportunity to remind those who had gathered that all must come to repentance and faith in Christ. In Gerald's deepest time of grief, he was still able to remember His Lord and turn to Him for comfort. As in the words of Peter in return to Jesus' question, "Do you want to go away as well?"

Peter, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

To the family of Gerald and Ellen Leverett I want to say publicly how encouraged I am in you perseverance during a time of most difficult struggle. May the Lord our God grant you all an abundance of grace during your time of loss.

New Ice Skating Arena In Dodge City

2011-02-13T19:41:00.000-08:00

On a personal note, today I took my two older kids to the brand new Unite Wireless Arena's open house. They both skated for about 4 hours. Here are a couple of videos. I must say, their skating has improved quite a bit. Here is the new complex.

And here are the kids skating.

I met the former New York Ranger, and currently USA Hockey Representative, Jim Johnson. He is attempting to form an actual hockey program in western Kansas. You may read about the the story here in The Dodge City Daily Globe.

I just have to say my family is quite excited to potentially be involved with hockey in western Kansas. It really is the best sport ever.

Liberalism and Death, Clouds Without Water

2011-02-08T12:02:00.000-08:00

I remember years ago as a youth and young adult my search for religious truth. I remember going to fundamentalist churches and conservative churches and liberal churches. Now at the time I didn't know and understand the theological differences between churches. I just knew that some had total confidence in their beliefs for some unknown reason and others had mushy gushy answers that meant nothing. In this video clip from the television show ER, I am reminded of the feeling I had while sitting in what I now know was a theologically liberal church. They simply had no answer for the deep seated need I desired to be fulfilled. The only difference between this guy and myself was that he was "running out of time". But the anger he expresses is exactly what I felt.

Even to this day, I have no idea why people like this woman want to "help" people in the religious context. They don't believe anything, and even if they did, they certainly have no basis for such belief. They are as Jude describes, clouds without water.

Preaching at Shallow Water

2011-02-07T15:24:00.000-08:00

Once again, I had the priviledge to prwach at Gospel Fellowship in Shallow Water, KS It truly is a blessing to proclaim the Gospel. If you're bored enough, you may listen here.

Caesar Is Lord

2011-01-19T18:38:00.000-08:00

Rush played a clip of Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee,

The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process. That is what HR-2 does and I rise in opposition to it, and I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives, and we recognize that 40 million plus are uninsured. Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their 14th Amendment rights, and their right to equal protection under the law? This bill is constitutional, and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question, "Must I die, must my child die because I am now disallowed from getting insurance?"

Apparently, medical insurance has been Constitutional right all of this time (see here). For consistency sake, would not car insurance also be a Federal Right? After all, it was the Left that compared the two to begin this debate. Why stop there? Why not insure every home owner? In fact, don't I need a home, and therefore the government should buy me one?

Whether you are Prolife or Prochoice, if she is going to be consistent, why does she stand with the party that takes away the Fifth Amendment rights of unborn children. So apparently, the Media and the Left get to control the frame of the debate by arguing that it is unconstitutional to repeal Obama Care. So if it is repealed, does that mean she could take the Right to court because the Constitution is being violated?

It is quite ironic that the number of murdered children in this country that could have received proper medical care, the right to due process and the right to life, reached 53 million as opposed to her made up number of 40 million uninsured. But as my friend likes to say, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."

But all of this only critiques her own inconsistencies. The fact is, the Left can't even begin to justify their assumptions and presuppositions. For instance, why is Caesar Lord? Where did the Right to Life come from? How did the State become the source for the right of insurance or life? Why do insurance companies have to insure anyone?

What is stopping Left-wing owned companies from doing the very things the Left wants the government to do? I have a friend who believes that companies should do business differently by doing things like profit sharing, etc. That's fine. So why not start a business doing just that instead of forcing by law his ideas of how things should be? Why is it just assumed the government has the right to do what the Left wants and force the rest of us by the power of taxation to pay into their giant insurance scheme? (which would be illegal in any legitimate company)

But in all of this, my same friend can't even begin to explain why government has the right to exist. It is just assumed because to attempt to justify his position would bring him to a reality that he must suppress. The answer is simple. God exists, but we don't like God. Since man is an idolater, we must replace God at all costs. In this case, it is with the State.

Quote of the Day

2011-01-17T19:50:00.000-08:00

Things are good when you know your wife enjoys listening to things like the White Horse Inn. Today my wife shows me at lunch time a clip of John McArthur's rebuke of Joel Osteen. In it McArthur says something about your best life now.

"In his definitive book, Your Best Life Now, and that ought to be a dead give away since the only way this could be your best life is if you're going to hell.

Lord's Prayer Messsage

2011-01-16T15:19:00.000-08:00

Once again I have had the priviledge to preach at Gospel Fellowship in Shallow Water, KS. The message is on the first half of the Lord's Prayer. Click here to listen if you are so bored you have nothing else to do.

Where Sin Abounds by Robert Gonzales

2011-01-04T19:19:00.000-08:00

After many interruptions, I have finally finished Robert Gonzales Jr.'s book, Where Sin Abounds. Since I do not have the ability to write a real book review, I won't. Instead I will just offer a few comments both positive and negative.

Robert Gonzales is Academic Dean and Professor of Old Testament Studies at Reformed Baptist Seminary. He contributes to the school's blog and also to the Reformed Baptist Theological Review. His style of writing may raise the bar of our reading level, but never to the point where he loses the reader.

In the positive, although the book at times quotes Hebrew terms which may perhaps scare the reader, the book is a fantastic read for anyone wishing to gain insight into the Book of Genesis. Most commentaries overlook the spread of sin among the Patriarchs while blasting away at the primeval world. But as the first sentence says in the Introduction,

A primary function of Scripture is to impart a proper understanding of sin.

With this in mind Dean Gonzales surveys the depths of sin and its downward spiral in the book of Genesis. The strength of this book is that he does not stop at Genesis 11 simply because the narrative seems to narrow in on one particular covenant family in the history of redemption and break from the earlier chapters. Instead, Gonzales shows the many parallels and surveys the depth of sin in the patriarchal family in a thought provoking and refreshing way. There were many times I found myself saying, "I never saw that before, but isn't that just what I do today!" As Gonzales states on pages 258-9,

But the reader should equally note that the seeds of human sin planted in Eden's garden grow into vines that spread beyond the parameters of the primeval narrative and bear much evil fruit in the patriarchal narratives. Adapting Fretheim's own language, it is striking the extent to which the more emphatic themes of chs. 1-11 are further developed in chs. 12-50, wherein human society in general and the patriarchal community in particular continue to sin and experience God's curse.

He also makes a concluding statement on page 256,

The patriarchal narrative leaves the reader with the impression that not merely humanity but even God's people left to themselves would eventually come to ruin. Only intrusions of divine grace (common and special) or judgment (punitive or remedial) can stem sin's rising tide.

You will learn much about your own sin as you look at the lives of the patriarchs.

The negative in this book is the foot notes. Almost every page is filled with them, and I mean filled. Many pages have more foot notes than the main book. What is difficult is that many of the foot notes are worth reading while many simply offer more technical information. This can be quite frustrating if you are one of those, "I just have to read every word on the page," type of person. Nevertheless, this negative may not actually be a negative for people who love that kind of thing.

All I really can say about this book is that you need to go buy it and read it and enjoy it. It is most certainly worth your time.

Obama: Repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell

2010-12-22T21:03:00.000-08:00

The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy instituted byPresident Clinton and now being repealed by President Obama has some interesting coverage. In this WashingtonPost story, we are told in the very first paragraph,

The results signal continued widespread public support for ending the military's 17-year ban on gays in the military and come as Congress prepares to vote again on legislation ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law.

First, the Clinton policy did not prevent homosexuals from serving in the military. This is just an outright lie. It has always been illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military. In fact, it has always been illegal to commit adultery in the military (whether or not it is being currently enforced is another question). Clinton's policy just allowed homosexuals to serve secretly in the military because the policy forced the military to not be allowed to ask a potential recruit.

Second, notice this is seen as a victory for Obama. Why? Well, apparently, as this article states over and over again, the American public is not against the idea. Yet did we see reporting of polls about how the overwhelming number of Americans were against Obamacare? The fact is, Obama couldn't care less what the American public thinks.

A third observation I have made over the years is this polling issue. How could it be otherwise? Seriously, who would goes against the politically correct driven argument for homosexuality? You are called hateful. You could easily lose your job. You could be charged with a hate crime. You will probably have to go to a gestapo style camp to reorient your mind to the Left's thinking.

After years of indoctrination or moral relativism, after years of the sexual revolution and the perversion of God's created order for marriage (adultery and fornication), how could homosexuality be anything other than just another "don't judge us" issue? Why would it be surprising that 77% of Americans don't care what gays do in their bedrooms? I would argue that most Americans (including myself) don't care what men do in their homes from a legal perspective. Yet no matter how accepting people may think they are, I am still convinced (based on private talk) that Americans still think homosexuality is wrong. They simply tolerate it, and they always have. Now they are just being forced to tolerate in ways they never have before.

I have written about the homosexual issue in the past and have yet to have a serious fundamentally sound moral argument for its acceptance. The military is not the place to fight the culture war. Yet the homosexual movement knows that to win there is to win big. But even Saturday Night Live once quipped that that is not the role of the military. For once, I happen to agree.

Preached At Shallow Water

2010-12-21T15:42:00.001-08:00

Just a quick note. I had the priviledge of preaching at Shallow Water this past Sunday. I decided to press on with Matthew 6. I fully realize that I need to write a sermon for Christmas. One of these days I just might. Here is the link to the message.

Todd Friel and Youth Groups

2010-12-20T07:27:00.000-08:00

Hey Todd, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think abot Youth Groups.

WT: Why Did They Reject the Messiah?

2010-12-17T14:30:00.001-08:00

Once again, Russell dropped by and gave me another Watchtower magazine. He stressed that I read the article, "Why Did They Reject the Messiah?". So I did.

The article uses three major arguments for why men rejected Jesus. The first is "unfulfilled expectations", followed by "rejected by Religious leaders", and finally that there was "community prejudice and persecution". Now these reasons for the most part are basically true in and of themselves as why men reject Christ. What I find interesting is sin is never mentioned. Basically, the reasons offered are how men remain in their unbelief and sustain their unbelief, but they are not the deep seated reason that would be the true culprit, slavery to sin.

Another interesting observation I noticed in the supporting arguments for the "unfulfilled expectations" is the citations of passages of the disciples such as John the Baptist. This section refers to John's questioning of Jesus, "Are You the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?"

Yet it is obvious John does not "reject" Jesus as the Messiah. He is never recorded as having done so. Yes, John was confused due to his own expectations and understanding of how the Kingdom of God comes to Earth. Yet this is more evidence that his prophecy is from God and not men since even he could not understand how his own prophecy would be fulfilled.

The Watchtower then cites to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.

"We were hoping that this man was the one destined to deliver Israel."

Once again, as confused as they were, there is no evidence they "rejected" Jesus. They simply thought he was killed (which He was) and therefore was not the Messiah by simple logical deduction. Let's face it. Jesus was supposedly dead at this time! The article falls short in making the proper distinctions between rejection, belief in a natural sense and saving faith.

The conclusion of the article also includes some problems. It again assumes that man is a morally neutral creature that may be reasoned into the Kingdom by appealing to his objective justice. It even goes to far as to say:

Today, erroneous ideas about Jesus and His teachings can have a similar effect. For example, many have been taught that God's Kingdom is in their heart or will come about by human efforts.

Now I agree with the latter thought. God's consummation of the Kingdom does not come about by human effort. And yes, the consummated Kingdom is not merely in our hearts. Yet by not seeing that the Kingdom of God comes in two stages, the Watchtower misses the need for the work of the Spirit in this age. For instance, notice Jesus' words in Luke 17,

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,
21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

Men are blind by their sin and are unable to see the Kingdom of God. The solution is not more evidence, but a work of the Spirit as stated by Jesus in John's Gospel.

3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
3:4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

In conclusion, the Watchtower is only right in how men remain in their unbelief. It falls short of addressing the Biblical passages that deal with man's truly fallen nature and the remedy that the Triune God has provided in the redemption of His elect.

Noah's Ark In Kentucky

2010-12-08T19:43:00.000-08:00

I saw on Yahoo News this little statement,

Noah's Ark Tourist Attraction Sparks Debate
Tue, 7 Dec 9:01 PM EST - ABC
News 2:25 10 views

Some believe using state funds to build a Bible-themed attraction is wrong.

So I decided to look around and found this on this site.

Kentucky Offers Tax Breaks for Ark Project Kentucky's Democratic governor has signed on to the plan, promising almost $40 million in tax breaks for a project that is expected to create 900 jobs. According to a feasibility study for the park, 1.6 million visitors could show up in the first full year alone, and the project could generate $250 million in state revenue.

So which is it? Tax breaks or using State Funds to pay for a museum? Knowing how the Left loves to assume that all money belongs to Government, and if someone doesn't pay the amount of taxes they want, then they are "losing money".

Disinfo states a similar argument,

...should the state be subsidizing what is clearly a religious venture?

There it is again. No citation. No evidence offered that the State is actually giving money to this venture. It is simply assumed in their world that if someone wants to do something, the money already belongs to the government. That is just sick thinking. Windmills are subsidized. Turning corn into gasoline is subsidized. Not taxing something is not subsidizing. It is freedom.

Another interesting thing I have noticed is the flat Earth comments. All the atheists are just unable to allow another perspective of origins because it doesn't fit their dogma. At least the Governor understands free speech and freedom of thought.

"The people of Kentucky didn't elect me governor to debate religion. The elected me governor to create jobs, and that's what we're doing here," said Beshear. "Our laws don't allow us to discriminate as to entertainment subject matter of a theme park. And as long as it is legal and meets all of our criteria, I think it's clearly constitutional."

Personally, I don't care about trying to rebuild Noah's Ark. It doesn't prove anything, and only gives visitors some kind of "Bible experience". Nevertheless, if the Smithsonian can build their monuments to their religious views of origins and get actual State funding, tax breaks for the museum, which only means they get to keep their money, then certainly the Creationists have their right to build their monuments too.

Rome Condemns the Gospel

2010-11-30T16:27:00.000-08:00

I heard Dr. White read this on the Dividing Line today, and though I should not be shocked, it never ceases to amaze me when Evangelicals want to consider Rome another Christian denomination. In this document, Unigenitus, Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713, it is stated most clearly that certain beliefs are:

Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.

Now what would be an example of a belief that is evil-sounding? Try one of my favorites.

30. All whom God wishes to save through Christ are infallibly saved.

And this one just floors me.

12. When God wishes to save a soul, at whatever time and at what ever place, the undoubted effect follows the Will of God.

Can this really be doubted? Apparently Rome does. And the reading of the Bible?

80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.

Now I have several Roman Catholic friends and aquaintances. For most of them, they would deny that Scripture is not meant to be read for all and by all. Yet this is modern ignorant American RCs pretending that the past didn't happen. Just talk to some of the older guys. The past wasn't so long ago.

Dembski Verses Hitchens

2010-11-26T21:47:00.000-08:00

Thanks to my pastor for pointing out to me that William Dembski has recently debated the infamous atheist, Christopher Hitchens. Now to be fair, I have not listened to the debate yet, so this is just an initial comment based upon this article from BPNews found here. Yet once again, I think the Christian apologist who attempts to be consistent with atheists in sound argumentation may find this debate frustrating. As the article quotes William Dembski,

While Intelligent Design does not attempt to prove the existence of the Christian God in particular, it is "friendly toward theism" and toward belief in the loving God whom Christians worship.

This approach is doomed to failure. At this point, I will simply point the reader to an excellent series of articles by Jamin Hubner (here and here and here) and a recent debate by James White verses Silverman (here). I think you will find this debate to be the most straightforward debate you have ever heard a Christian do.

Perhaps the book/movie, Collision, between Hitchens and Douglas Wilson may come close.

Islam Violates Free Speech in Kansas

2010-11-21T07:21:00.000-08:00

What was happening in Dearborn Michigan is no longer just a unique incident. Now we have a Pastor in Wichita, KS who has been arrested for witnessing to Muslims. So wherever Islam goes in the U.S., you may be certain you will lose your free speech rights. Islam and liberty simply cannot co-exist. Read here for story.

Calvinistic Churches Growing?

2010-11-16T17:06:00.000-08:00

Baptist Press News has as its Headline article today that the Calvinistic resurgence may not actual be real. It cites from the Barna Study found here.

What is interesting is that the supposed Young, Restless an dReformed may not be quite as young.

The Barna study explored some characteristics of the pastors aligned with the "Calvinist or Reformed" label as compared to the profile of pastors who identified themselves as "Wesleyan or Arminian." In terms of the age of pastors, among the youngest generation of pastors (ages 27 to 45), 29% described themselves as Reformed, while 34% identified as Wesleyan. Pastors associated with the Boomer generation (ages 46 to 64) were evenly split between the two theological camps: 34% Reformed, 33% Arminian. Pastors who were 65 or older were the least likely to use either term: 26% and 27%, respectively.

So if there is not a Calvinistic resurgence, where is all the hype coming from? Perhaps among the Laymen of churches? It would be interesting to see those who consider themselves theologically active in their churches as to what the general direction is.

Handel's Messiah At Macy's

2010-11-14T11:40:00.000-08:00

Hidden among us is the Kingdom of Christ. It has invaded this Earth in a form that to the naked eye is completely missed by natural man. Yet, according to the Bible, one day the Sons of Glory shall be revealed. Here is a foretaste of that event.

Now I realize that this kind of thing has been done before apart from anything religious, and the 600 singers performing this may not even be Christian. Yet I think even that is a good Bible illustration. Separating the real thing from illusions. Handel's Messiah is simply a gift among men pointing men to Christ.

What impresses me about this video is how several shoppers just seem to go about their business, ignoring the great even that is beginning among them. However, by the end, no one is able to resist and all succumb to its majesty.

Imputation and Covenant Theology

2010-11-12T15:22:00.001-08:00

Just a few moments ago, I read this section of Walter Chantry's booklet, Imputation of Righteouness & Covenant Theology (which may be read in full here). It explains the nature of the covenants and how God works our "collective bargaining". Now to be fair, Roman Catholics do believe in a doctrine called Original Sin. However, I think they miss the depth of the problem that Adam and his posterity have been plunged into, which is why they vehemently deny Sola Fide. Here is the relevant section:

V. The Histories of Adam & Jesus

In God’s world there is representation or collective bargaining. When the Holy One made the human race, He appointed Adam as our head. The Lord assigned Adam a test that was more than personal. It was a test for Adam and for all whom he represented. Adam was in collective bargaining for himself and for all who would be born of him by natural generation. The consequences of that test would have the most wide-ranging effect and profound impact upon everyone of his posterity, everyone who was in Adam, everyone whom he represented. It was God who set up the mechanism of representation and who appointed the representative. Adam took the test for us all.

In Romans 5:12 the Scriptures speak of this governmental arrangement: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men because all sinned.” This is an astounding statement that one man has brought sin and death upon us all. That is not the common thought people have as to how God is going to deal with us.

When it says in verse 12, “and in this way death came to all men because all sinned,” it is not saying that all sinned because all did the same thing that Adam did. The proof that the verse is not saying that is found in verse 14, where we read, “Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam.” Some never sinned personally as Adam did, but they were in him, represented by him. He acted for them and they die as the consequence of Adam’s first foul deed. Because of one man’s one sinful deed, all are sinners. All are constituted sinners, all are condemned and all are destined to die. Verse 18: “the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men.” Verse 19, “through the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners.” The entire passage is repetitious for emphasis that one act of the one man made many sinners and brought to the many condemnation and death.

What the passage is teaching is that the most horrible realities of our human existence are all the consequences of the one act of one man, our representative, Adam. “In sin your mother conceived you,” (Psalm 51:5) and “from the womb you have been wayward speaking lies,” (Psalm 58:3). Your sinful constitution is the direct result of the one act of the one man in his failure of the representative test. From the first instant of your existence, you have been condemned by God because of the one act of the one man. From the time of your conception, death began to stalk you with the assurance that you were his as a consequence of the one act of the one man.

To be very blunt, God holds you responsible for another man’s act. The Lord is not arbitrary about his. It does not mean that, when you stand before God and the books are opened, you will be credited with the sin of some unknown, distant relative. This mechanism of being credited with another man’s act is only employed in the case of divinely appointed representatives. Adam was such a person.

There is only one other individual who has served in a similar capacity as representative for vast numbers of the human race in God’s scheme of government. Only one other was appointed by God for collective bargaining with heaven on behalf of members of the human race. That other person is Jesus Christ. To show that He is the only man beside Adam to serve as a federal representative, Jesus is called the second Adam, (I Corinthians 15:45).

Romans 5:18, 19 clearly draws the parallel function of Christ and Adam. “Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be constituted righteous.” Because of the one righteous act of the one man, Jesus Christ, multitudes will be justified before God (declared to have the righteousness of God).

All who were in Adam were constituted sinners, were condemned, and were sentenced to die. All who were in Christ will be constituted righteous, will be justified, and will have eternal life. How can God credit the account of a sinner, like Abraham or like me, with the righteousness of God (Romans 4)? The answer: on the basis of God’s great representative principle, of His governing the human race in a federal manner, of His administering humanity under a covenantal arrangement (Romans 5).

This is a great fact of our world. God governs the human race on a collective basis, under heads whom He appoints. Actions and decisions of the two federal heads are imputed or credited to those whom they represent. In other words, we bear the responsibility for what these representatives have done. In one case, the act of one man led to condemnation and death for a vast multitude. In the other case, the one act of one man led to justification and life for a vast multitude. Our lives are profoundly determined in time and in eternity by representatives. The histories of Adam and Jesus are not merely interesting curiosities of the past. They determine one’s destiny. These two acted for us as representatives.

Despising False Myths about Rome

2010-11-10T19:01:00.000-08:00

Tiber Jumper posted on his blog an educational tool for those of us "who despise catholicism". Now I must confess, I don't sit around here and think of how many ways I despise Roman Catholicism. Yet I suppose I do despise it because it has perverted the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But just to be clear, I also despise the Mormon Church for its perversion of the Bible's teaching of the One True and Living God. I despise the Watchtower on almost every front. I despise Islam as well. But again, I really don't sit around here and think of how to despise other people's beliefs. So "despising" just seems to be a term that is used because everybody else is against me. Rome verses the world.

Now here is a list of myths that he offers.

Because Catholics reject the tradition of "sola fide" ("faith alone"), they think they can work their way into Heaven and believe they are saved by works . WRONG
Catholics think the pope does not sin . WRONG
Catholics re-crucify Christ at their Masses (or at least think they do) WRONG
Catholics think Mary is part of the Godhead and is to be worshipped WRONG
Catholics worship statues WRONG (for the 150th time on this blog) WRONG
Catholics think they can't pray to God directly but have to go through saints WRONG
Catholics conjure the dead WRONG
Catholics believe people can be saved after they die WRONG
The Catholic Church teaches that one who isn't formally a Catholic is damned to Hell WRONG
The Crusades are an example of Catholic aggression WRONG
The Inquisition(s) killed hundreds of thousands of people and targeted Jews WRONG
Pope Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope" and didn't do a thing to help Jews during WWII WRONG
The Catholic Church wasn't around until the time of Constantine, a pagan who controlled the Church. WRONG
The Catholic Church did more than baptize pagan calendar days for the good of Christ, it is pagan in its very roots. WRONG

So lets deal with a few that I think are relevent by asking Tiber some questions.

Because Catholics reject the tradition of "sola fide" ("faith alone"), they think they can work their way into Heaven and believe they are saved by works . WRONG

If you are not saved by faith alone, then how can your personal works not be a part of how you are saved (no matter how you nuance them with grace, they would merit the merits of Christ from the Treasuery of merits...correct?)? If not, how may grace be grace if we have to add human merit in any way? to put it another way, if I just have to add one work to my faith, say circucmcision, how is that not being saved by my works, no matter how much they are done in faith?

Do you see Christ as your Covenantal Representative in your place, or do you see his life, death, burial and resurrection as something that makes you savable, but not perfected?

Catholics re-crucify Christ at their Masses (or at least think they do) WRONG

Perhaps many people misunderstand the nuances offered by Rome, but Rome does teach that Christ's sacrifice is "represented" literally every time the Mass is offered. What is offensive is that the Mass never actually takes away anyone's sin or propitiates sin. A man could take the Mass everyday for his entire life, and yet die apart from Christ upon committing a mortal sin on his last day.

The Mass also denies the doctrine of Original Sin properly defined by the Covenants of the Bible. It also denies Christ's perfect sacrifice to establish a perfect New Covenant in which sinners are perfected forever through faith alone in the Covenant Head/Representative. The Mass is one of the means by which the church controls the grace of God piece-ealing it out till you have achieved final justification. So I would love to ask, Do you have perfect peace with God, with assurance that you possess eternal life now and forever?

Catholics think Mary is part of the Godhead and is to be worshipped WRONG

Apart from Muslims, I am not certain if there are any Protestants that think this. The criticism of Reformed Protestants is that with all of the attempts at saying praying to Mary is not worship, by differentiating between veneration and adoration, as being unanswered Biblically. Is this distinction Biblical? If Moses caught you with candles and incense while you were praying to Mary, would he really accept your distinction?

The Catholic Church teaches that one who isn't formally a Catholic is damned to Hell WRONG

If you were living during the Council of Florence, would you really believe this, or would you have to wait till the modern church to explain what that council meant when it condemned everyone outside of Rome's church?

So back to Mary, Tiber, do you pray this prayer?

O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason, has He made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee; come, then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands, I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me; for, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; not even from Jesus, my Judge Himself, because, by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased. But one thing I fear; that, in the hour of temptation, I may neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.

A Great God Demands a Great Response

2010-10-29T11:48:00.000-07:00

Conferences and Events
•Reformation Weekend - St. Francis, KS
Reformation Weekend

October 29-31, 2010

First Baptist Church
420 S. Scott

St. Francis, KS

A Great God Demands a Great Response

Meeting times:

Friday 7:00 pm (session 1) The Great Confession

Saturday 10:30 am (session 2) The Great Commitment

12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

1:30 pm (session 3) The Great Commandment Part 1

3:00 pm (break)

7:00 pm (session 4) The Great Commandment Part 2

Sunday 10:30 am (session 5) The Great Commission

12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

For more information or lodging recommendations call: 785-332-3921 or 785-332-2959, or email: fbc67756@sbcglobal.net. Our website is: http://fbcstfrancis.org. Lodging is available in homes on a first come basis. In St. Francis there is Dusty Farmer Motel 785-332-8924, Cook's Empire Motel 785-332-2231, and Homesteader Motel 785-332-607. In Goodland (35 miles south) there are a number of motels including Comfort Inn 785-899-7181, Days Inn 785-890-3644, Super 8 785-890-7566, Motel 6, 785 890-5672, and Holiday Inn Express 877 863-4780.

Our conference speaker will be Bill Ascol. Bill is Senior Pastor at Bethel Baptist Church in Owasso, Oklahoma. He began his ministry at Bethel in September 2005 after 28 years ministering in Louisiana Baptist churches. He is a former Vice-President of the Executive Board of the Louisiana Baptist Convention as well as a former President of the Louisiana Baptist Pastors' Conference. He currently serves in an advisory capacity to Founders Ministries and is the Coordinator of the Saved By Faith Youth Challenge Camps for young people. He received the MDiv degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Bill and his wife, Karen, have five children and five grandchildren.

Stanley Fish On Religious Freedom, Islam and the State

2010-10-25T20:55:00.001-07:00

Stanley Fish wrote an editorial yesterday for the NYTimes titled, Serving Two Masters: Sharia Law and the Secular State. Now I have for years said that Liberalism can not resist Islam, I really don't think they know what to do with their political ally.

If one studies the issues, I think it can be seen in general that Christianity, properly understood, is a religion for all peoples. What I mean is that Christianity does not necessarily overthrow a culture but may instead redeem it. Of course there may be some cultures that are so debased that, once a majority becomes converted, an overthrow to the previous way of life may occur. We see this a few times in the book of Acts where certain religious businesses come into conflict with people not purchasing their idolatrous fixes. However, Islam is simply not that way. Islam seeks to overthrow cultures and convert the world to 7th century Islam. That is what Sharia Law is all about.

This paragraph offers the initial question being discussed.

The conflict between religious imperatives and the legal obligations one has as a citizen of a secular state — a state that does not take into account the religious affiliations of its citizens when crafting laws — is an old one (Scalia is quoting Reynolds v. United States, 1878); but in recent years it has been felt with increased force as Muslim immigrants to Western secular states evidence a desire to order their affairs, especially domestic affairs, by Shariah law rather than by the supposedly neutral law of a godless liberalism. I say “supposedly” because of the obvious contradiction: how can a law that refuses, on principle, to recognize religious claims be said to be neutral with respect to those claims? Must a devout Muslim (or orthodox Jew or fundamentalist Christian) choose between his or her faith and the letter of the law of the land?

Now obviously we have seen Baptists stand for Prohibition, and so Christians are often supposedly forced to choose either the State's Law or God's (I guess God is against wine). However, this is a false dichotomy that Christians have disagreed upon. But what about the issue of Abortion or slavery. Although Christians also disagree on these issues, to argue that the State may remain neutral would be absurd on its face. But again, we are talking about fundamental issues and the basis for the rule of law.

So Fish's question is correct,

...how can a law that refuses, on principle, to recognize religious claims be said to be neutral with respect to those claims?

This is a great question and the answer that Christianity has offered since the Reformation has been the solution...for the most part. The answer that Christ and His Apostles give is that Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, the two are not the same Kingdom. Therefore, the specific beliefs of Christians that pertain to the church and her ordinances are not to be confused with the State.

This is where the difficulty lies for Christians. The State is not "neutral". If the Christian faith is correct, then we must all acknowledge that God is the one who institutes the State. Now obviously, not everyone is a Christian, so how can this work? Though this seems troubling to many, it is actually the best part of our system of government. We all have a voice in the public sphere. The Christian is free to argue that abortion or slavery (as practiced in the South) is wrong. And he may do so on the basis of religion's revelation. If he is able to persuade his fellow man, then so be it.

Sharia law is simply not the same. In Islam, there is no such thing as a separation of Church and State. By definition, there can not be a separation.

Fish offers an example of Reverend Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury's

suggestion others had made before him) that in some areas of the law a “supplementary jurisdiction,” deriving from religious law, be recognized by the liberal state, which, rather than either giving up its sovereignty or invoking it peremptorily to still all other voices, agrees to share it in limited areas where “more latitude [would be] given in law to rights and scruples rooted in religious identities.

The solutions offered by religious scholars seem problematic as Fish notes,

The words to stumble on are “reasonable” and “just,” which at once introduce the requirement and indicate how hard, if not impossible, it will be to meet it: “reasonable” means confirming to rational, not religious, principles; “just” means respecting the equality of all, not just male or faithful, individuals.

How can laws be based upon such an idea if Islam is not able to keep their "reasonable" laws from harming those who would disagree with them? As I said earlier, Christianity has a solution to this dilemma. Islam does not and sees no need for one.

Fish cites Milbank as arguing that Christianity has the ability to show respect for Islam where a secular liberal state can not. In the end, I don't see that Fish really comes to a solution. It seems to me he is on the right path in acknowledging Christianity as a solution, but I am not certain if he sees the "Two-Kingdom" model as a part of his terminology?

My personal opinion is that perhaps the term "secular" needs to be more carefully defined. Whenever I have this conversation with atheists, at first they seem to like the idea of my understanding of Church and State. The problem always arises when the definition of secular, as being applied to the State, comes in to play. I reject that secular has to mean "Godless". At the same time, I don't think Christians need to argue a particularly Christian (ie Baptist, Presbyterian) position to persuade his fellow man of the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God". The problem, however, will become reversed. Instead of the State being hostile to religious claims, it will be seen as hostile to the atheist.

The truth is that this is God's world. He is the Creator of all things as Fish rightly points out that a so-called Christian worldview has a "teleological view of history notably lacking in liberalism". So once again, our nation is going to have to go back and rethink these issues in light of Islam. Do we go back to a definition of secular that the Founders would have embraced? And if so, how can we as a nation embrace an immigrant Islamic people that fundamentally, must overthrow our way of life.

O'Donnell On the First Amendment

2010-10-19T20:39:00.001-07:00

Everyone is making a big deal out of Christine O'Donnell's statement about the separation of church and state. YahooNews is reporting/editorializing about her comments.

Keeping government out of religion and religion out of government is a core principle of the First Amendment. The first 16 words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means government can't limit our personal faith or favor one religion over others. It also means that creationism cannot be taught in America's public schools.

The fact that they wrote this paragraph shows their ignorance about the point that she made and their willingness to try to help the Democrat running against her and say and do anything to fulfill that agenda.

There is nothing in the Firsts Amendment that says creationism can not be taught in schools. The Left's assumption at this point is that creationism is a religion that would be established if it were permitted to be taught. If that were the case, then the Declaration of Independence could not be taught in our schools either. Wouldn't that be just a little insane?

But notice the clause that is overlooked.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

What is so difficult about this clause? But again, the political Left gets to define what science is and thereby make creationism a religion. How do they do this. Well, they simply define science from a purely naturalistic perspective. How are they able to do so? They just assert that is the case, and don't you dare question their ultimate authority.

It is true the the Framers wanted to keep the institution of the church separate from the state, but they believed both institutions were ordained by God as, again, can be seen from the Declaration.

So in conclusion, they proceed to lecture us all, not just O'Donnell, about the Constitution in the rest of their editorial. But the fact is, they haven't the slightest idea of what they are saying. For example, they say,

The separation of church and state means that teachers in public schools can't teach their faith to their students.

This is a tactic used by the Left to get religious people to keep God out of the public sphere. It assumes that because someone uses God the Creator as the basis of their arguments for a political policy, say..."thou shalt not murder", then they are forcing their private religious views on the rest of us. But by doing this, they undercut the foundation for any laws. Laws simply become rules to govern society by the elite. The State becomes the ultimate authority and the measly little citizens should just bow down to the Emperor.

Hidden within the article is a passing sentence in which YahooNews defends Coons in passing. Making it no big deal that he was clueless as to the rights of the First Amendment.

Later in the debate, O'Donnell challenged Coons to name the five freedoms of the First Amendment. He came up four freedoms short. It seems to me, if she knew the other 4, then perhaps she understands the first one better than they do? I think so.

One More Comment On Mulch and Abortion

2010-10-18T16:41:00.000-07:00

I did need to comment one more thing on this statement by Mulch.

Prior to that decision [Roe v. Wade], many women were having children who were ill-prepared to take care of and raise them with good parental skills. As a result of that, these children grew up to commit violent acts.

This kind of reasoning is basically why the founders of the abortion movement started in the first place. Abortion was designed by radical Leftists to rid the world of the unwanteds, ie: black people, poor people, etc. As BlackGenocide.org writes in this article,

From the beginning, Sanger advocacy of sex education reflected her interest in population control and birth prevention among the "unfit." Her first handbook, published for adolescents in 1915 and entitled, What Every Boy and Girl Should
Know, featured a jarring afterword:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

Later in the article the author states,

Sanger advocated the mandatory sterilization of the insane and feebleminded." Although this does not diminish her legacy as the key force in the birth control movement, it raises questions much like those now being raised about our nation's slaveholding founders. How do we judge historical figures? How are their contributions placed in context?
It is easy to see why there is some antipathy toward Sanger among people of color, considering that, given our nation's history, we are the people most frequently described as "unfit" and "feebleminded."

Although, I am certain Bob Mulch would find racism applied to abortion abhorrent, I would have to ask why? With the government's destruction of the inner city black family through the welfare system, would they not qualify and fit the definition that he offers in the quote above?

It is simply a dangerous idea to empower any group of people to "decide" who is fit to live and die. Of course, in Bob Mulch's world, to even challenge the assumption that babies in the womb are not people with certain inalienable rights is never even part of the discourse.

In my opinion, it seems Bob is struggling with the problem of evil in the world. He wants to rectify it while ignoring the Creator's right to govern this world. In fact, it is my uderstanding that Bob rejects the Christian God. Yet by doing so, he rejects the very foundation for there being a problem at all. Even more, he rejects the only solution to the problem of sin and death.

Bob Mulch On Abortion

2010-10-16T11:03:00.000-07:00

I realize I haven't been posting much lately, but when you have a kid in high school, life radically changes for the busier. Hopefully I will be able to get back to interacting with the WT issue, but in this week's local paper, a friend of mine, Bob Mulch, wrote a letter concerning abortion entitled, Conservative Politicians Have No Concern For Welfare, Rights of Women.

Now what is interesting about this article is that much of what has been said has also been discussed on a personal level between us. Being that we have discussed some of these things, I would think that he would have updated his form of argumentation to take into consideration opposing views. Sadly, his letter acts as if the Prolife position is unknown and "conservative" politicians are just doing things to be mean to women. In fact, my prolife friend, Dr. James White, a christian apologist, has been unable to find a prochoice philosopher to debate because they know their position, when publicly debated, loses every time. Yet my friend Bob Mulch seems to be unaware that his position has been fully dealt with by the "other side" or he is simply unable to hear due to what I believe to be his emotional proclivities on such an emotional issue.

For instance, in his article, he wrote,

One night an officer and I were called to meet a person on a street corner. We pulled up to a young woman who was crying. We seated her in the back seat of the patrol car and found out that she was only 13 years of age and that she was only about six blocks from home and had been walking along the street when a man grabbed her and took her into some bushes and raped her.

To which he concludes what most of us would,

This would be an event that I would never forget.

For much of the article, my friend makes great use of the emotional argumentation about back alley abortions and the fact that women get pregnant due to being raped. This form of argumentation and the statistical issues Abortionists have used have been blown out of the water for decades. The entire premise is based upon a lie. But let's grant the false premise of his article for the moment. This is what I find particularly deceiving. He states,

Our conservative legislators who are antiabortion [never prolife of course, perhaps I should start saying he is anti-life?] fail to realize that the crime rate in the United States was going up through the '60s, '70s, and '80s and surprisingly started to go downward during the '90s. Researchers have found that this downward trend was a result of Roe versus Wade.

Now this is a simply amazing conclusion. The fact that researchers have also found violence against children can be linked to abortion is totally overlooked. But what evidence does he offer for this conclusion? Nothing! That's the beauty about statistics. You can force them to say whatever you want. Never mind the fact that a child being murdered and ripped limb from limb within the mother's womb is being ignored in this entire discussion.

But a further conclusion gets even better.

Prior to that decision [Roe v. Wade], many women were having children who were ill-prepared to take care of and raise them with good parental skills. As a result of that, these children grew up to commit violent acts.

Granting this false premise, we should just kill our children in the womb because that would keep bad kids from running around with bad [relatively speaking of course] parents.

But again, what does rape have to do with this conclusion? I haven't the foggiest idea other than Bob Mulch played the emotional rape card in order to get the unwary reader to agree with his illogical conclusion that all women should have this "right" to murder their babies and rip them limb from limb for the good parental reasons of less violence.

Then Mulch concludes to tell us what is in the "best interest" of women legislatively. Isn't that a hoot. A man is now going to tell us what is best for women. If a conservative made this statement, the feminists would be up in arms. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Now for his last line.

They [women] need to actively work at controlling their destiny for
themselves and their daughters.

Following this reasoning could lead to a lot of dark places if we took it to an extreme. It is true that Americans have traditionally stood for the individual to choose for himself what he wishes to be, but this should (as I think liberals would agree to some degree) not deny the created order and the fact that we live in a sinful and fallen world.

Jesus Judged the Israelites in the Wilderness

2010-10-07T20:48:00.000-07:00

An aquaintance of mine pointed out to me a textual variant at Jude 1:5. Now it is not so much the variant but what the text is about. He wrote,

There is some variation w/ the greek, some say "κυριος" [Lord] and others say "ιησους" [Joshua], but off the top of my head, I don't think that "κυριος" in the NT ever refers to the Father. (do you know of an example?) Plus, verse 4 calls Jesus both "κυριον"and "δεσποτην"! So, Jesus destroyed those who did not believe in the OT after he had saved them from Egypt. Paints a little different picture than the long hair fairy Jesus!

I decided to get Philip Comfort's, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, out and see what it had to say about the variant.

Among all the readings cited above, the first and second variants are the most remarkable, for they say that "Jesus delivered his people out of Egypt." This reading is found in A B 33 17 39 [among others] cop Origen Cyril Jerome Bede- an impressive collection of witnesses. P72 may possibly be an indirect witness to the reading with "Jesus," because it shows that the scribe had before him in his exemplar a messianic title--"Christ" (="Messiah"). At any rate, it is easier to argue (from a textual perspective) that the reading with "Jesus" is the one from which all the others deviated than to argue that the reading with "Lord" (or "God") was changed to "Jesus," because scribes were not known for fabricating difficult readings.

Some scholars, such as Wikgren have argued that Jude may have written (Joshua) in Jude 5 intending "Joshua" as in Heb 4:8. But this is very unlikely, because Joshua led the Israelites into the good land of Canaan, but not out of Egypt, and Joshua certainly did not destroy those who did not believe (Jude 5b). This was a divine activity. Thus, it is likely that Jesus, the I Am (see john 8:58), who was present with the Israelites and operative in their deliverance from Egypt. Paul shared a similar view inasmuch as he proclaimed that "Christ" was the one the Israelites constantly "tested" during these times (see 1 Cor 10:4,9). Thus, the reading "Jesus," though difficult, is not impossible. As such, it should be accepted as the original reading (as it was by Nestle and FF Bruce). The first edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament contained the reading "Jesus" in the text. But this was changed in the third edition, when a slim majority of the editors voted to put the reading with "Lord" in the text and the one with "Jesus" in the margin. (Metzger and Wikgren voted against this decision).

The first English translation to adopt the wording "Jesus" was NLT. (As the NT coordinator who proposed this reading to the NLT committee, I was glad to see them adopt it.) Two other recent versions have also adopted this reading: TNIV (a change from the NIV) and NET. Otherwise, it has been relegated to the margin of all other versions. NASB notes that "Two early manuscripts read 'Jesus.'" Those manuscripts are A and B.

So whether or not "Jesus" is the original reading, a sound number of scholars believe "Jesus" is the original reading. That is quite compelling in itself. However, even if "Kurios" is the original reading, the overwhelming majority of times Kurios is used, it refers to Christ. Therefore, the NT writers believed that Jesus existed as Yahweh prior to His birth in Bethlehem. There is just no way to get around it.

Is The End Near?

2010-10-02T13:18:00.001-07:00

I was just looking at the August issue of the Watchtower, and before I go on to respond to the next article on freewill, I think I need to make a comment Watchtower's answer to the question "What must you do to survive the End?"

The article goes to 2 Peter 3:5-7 and comments:

Live by God's moral standards. Those who wish to survive the end wil perform "holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion," wrote Peter. (2 Peter 3:11) Notice that Peter emphasizes "holy acts of conduct" and "deeds of godly devotion." more is involved, therefore, than a superficial confession of faith or last-minute effort to put things right with God.

Now I must confess it is right and good to understand that last minute
efforts to avoid judgment or superficial confessions are self-deceptive at best.
Yet the article goes on to tell us what acts are
acceptable.

What specific acts and deeds does God find acceptable? Why not
compare what you know with what the Bible teaches on this subject.

Here is the problem. If everyone could just understand the difference between descriptive passages verses imperative passages, we would probably stop talking past each other. Of course a true conversion will bring about good works. Yet the answer given here is no different from Rome's or any other faith that demands personal good works as the basis for salvation.

The Watchtower has no Gospel. It is the same as Rome's treadmill of sacraments without the terms. It does not have a proper view of sin or grace. When talking with my friend Russell, he is never able to respond to my question, "When may a person have assurance of salvation?" In fact, his response has always been in the negative. No one can know if they will be in paradise tomorrow.

I thank God that Christ, His life, His death, His burial, His resurrection and His ascension is the basis for the forgiveness of my sin and all my righteousness. On that basis all of my hope is in the Son of God which can not fail.

Rush Comments on Darwinism

2010-09-29T18:18:00.001-07:00

Rush made a statement on today's program that many of the ills in this modern world are due to Charles Darwin, Freud and Karl Marx.

Some time back I argued on this blog that the Global Warming hoax is a scientific hoax that can only be outdown by the theory of evolution. Well, today on Rush's show, he actually tackled that. He was going right down the fundamental assumptions that have brought about such poor foundations for government. Of course, an atheist caller had to call in and voice his opinion.

CALLER: Well, I'm not a professional scientist, but I will say this, that just as far as evolution is concerned, if you look at the bone structures of human beings versus the bone structures of apes --

Of course, I have heard this argument in several forms. The caller also mentions DNA similarities among other things. While I was listening all I could think of is my own personal car illustration. Well, Rush was reading my mind, or as he would probably say, I was reading his. He volleyed right back with the fact that all cars have steering wheels among 98% of other things. Does that mean they were evolved or created?

The End of Evil Deeds Is Assured!

2010-09-27T17:33:00.000-07:00

The next article in this Watchtower, The End of Evil Deeds Is Assured, must be one of the most Christ-less articles I have ever read by someone that supposedly believes in Jesus as Savior. The article rightly points out five promises found in the Bible that teaches what the end of the Age will entail.

The wicked will be completely removed. Psalm 37

The will be no more oppression. Psalm 72, Romans 8

People's material needs will be satisfied. Isa 65:21-22

Justice will prevail Luke 18:7,8

Selfishness will be replaced by righteousness. 2 Peter 3:13

Having said all of this, the foundation offered for this result of a peaceful age to come has no basis in reality nor Scripture. For instance, the very first paragraph states,

He has also given us free will and the ability to exercise self control, making it possible for us to choose not to do bad things.

And again on page 7,

It is the fact that millions of people worldwide today have already enjoyed success in ridding themselves of selfish, immoral, or violent personality traits and have learned to be honest, peaceable, and kind individuals.

So the obvious question is how does a freewill get a man better? Have we really seen men rid themselves of sin? According to the WT, it is by a knowledge of God that brings about the change in men.

Now here is the language barrier that one must scale with a Jehovah's Witness. It is true that having a proper knowledge of God is why men change, but what is meant by a JW verses one in the Reformed faith is radically different. It is the Reformed/Covenantal view that remains consistent in answering the JW. For the majority of Evangelicals, it is precisely here that their theology fails, for they are at a fundamental point, in agreement with the JW.

Earlier this summer, Russell, my JW friend and I had a long discussion about the Gospel. His definition of the Gospel is that God's Kingdom or rule will come to Earth. By believing in this message, men must choose to become righteous and learn from Jehovah how to live righteously. In doing so, eventually there will be a New Heavens and Earth.

It was here that I asked him a simple question. Based upon his views of the Kingdom, what is the difference between a 5 century BC Jew and his own view? In other words, a Jewish man living under the Mosaic Covenant already believed what he was saying. So why is his view any different? To put it yet another way, why do we need a New Covenant? What did Jesus actually come to do that Moses could not have done?

From a Covenantal viewpoint the answer is quite simple. I took Russell to Hebrews 8 where the writer deals with this exact question.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
Heb 8:8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Heb 8:9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

The problem with the First Covenant was that the people broke it. Why? Because of their union with Adam in his sin and their Original Sin nature. The assumption that man has some kind of freewill is simply not found in the text. Men are not in need of a Good moral teacher or example. Men are not in need of getting over some addiction. Men are not in need of improving their status or marriage. Men are not in need being satisfied with material things. Men are in need of someone fulfilling the Law of God externally to them and taking their sins away permanently.

The New Covenant is not just something written upon the heart because we chose Christ. It is written because God has united us to Christ through faith.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."

In this chapter, we see that it is God who writes His laws upon our hearts. It is God who establishes this Covenant and forgives the sins of His people forever. As we may read from the prior chapter, it based upon the finished work of Christ. It is Christ who intercedes on behalf of men as their High Priest. This is not some hypothetical salvation. This is something Christ does in perfect union with the Father.

Heb 7:22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
Heb 7:23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,
Heb 7:24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.

Watchtower Theology does not have a perfect Christ that saves perfectly because man is not in need of a perfect Savior. Why? Because man has some kind of freewill. Freewill reigns supreme in WT theology (as in may Evangelical circles).

So I will ask the same rhetorical question of Russell as I ask all of my Dispensational Evangelical friends. Why does man not sin in the new heavens and earth? Is it even possible? If not, why not?

Why Do People Do Bad Things?

2010-09-26T09:13:00.000-07:00

In the first article, Why Do People Do Bad Things?, five reasons are offered. What is helpful about this article is the teaching that all men sin, including the admission that "shocking deeds are often perpetrated by seemingly ordinary people in the neighborhood". Yet, as we will see, all five reasons that are offered only explain the temptations and the means by which men are brought to the point of committing sin. The article never deals with the real issue of man's heart and union with Adam, nor does it deal with the doctrine of Original Sin and its effects on the human race.

Reason #1: Mere oppression may make a wise one act crazy. - Ecclesiastes 7:7

The first sentence reads,

The Bible acknowledges that at times people feel driven by force of circumstance to do what they otherwise would not do.

Now we have all experienced this in our lives. We have seen this in our neighbor's lives. Biblically, we have seen such examples as Abraham deceiving Pharaoh in order to protect his own hide.

Yet another explanation is much more Biblical for this. It is God who brings about circumstances in His divine Providence in order that the true nature and character of our hearts be displayed. A tree is known by its fruit. It is God who forces the creature to display its fruit for the Day of Judgment.

Another assumption in this thinking by the WT [Watchtower] is that men are able to normally choose good because they aren't really that bad. It is only bad circumstances that makes men bad. However, this denies the Biblical teaching of Total Depravity that we see in the Psalms as cited by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3.

Reason #2: The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. - 1 Timothy 6:10

The old adage, Every man has his price, implies that even good people are willing to violate the rules of decency and morality when enough money is involved.

Now this section seems to admit that at least some men only seem to be good. However, this section does not go into the issues of the heart and that all men are sinful from the heart. That some men have a personality change when tempted is a reflection of the deeper issues. The love for money is not merely external or a surface level sin.

Reason #3: Because sentence against a bad work has not been executed speedily, that is why the heart of the sons of men has become fully set in them to do bad. - Ecclesiastes 8:11

That scripture points out the human tendency to think that one can get away with anything when those in authority are not watching.

This explanation simply explains what happens when the restraint of sin has been removed. It is true that God in His Providence has restrained the evil intentions of our hearts by using government officials or even our parents in the disciplining of our children. But that is just the point! This explanation only tells us why men sin when given the opportunity in certain circumstances. It doesn't really explain the why. Once again, the WT falls short.

Reason #4: Each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin. - James 1:14,15

All humans are susceptible to wrong thinking. Everyday, we are bombarded with countless suggestions and temptations to do wrong...Even so, the outcome depends on the choice one makes...

Now this section is technically true. Yet again, the presuppositions that are poured into the words make for a radically different viewpoint. It seems to be simply assumed that mankind is some kind of morally neutral sinner. This assumes freewill. It is precisely because of this viewpoint that Christ is not to be found anywhere in these articles. Freewill leads to the idea that we only need a Savior who helps us, not one that actually comes down from heaven to be our Substitute. It is also why freewill leads inevitably to groups abandoning the Trinity. Who needs a God/Man to be our Savior when we only need divine assistance?

Reason #5: He that is walking with the wise persons will become wise, but he that is having dealings with the stupid ones will fare badly. - Proverbs 13:20

There is no minimizing the influence-for good or for bad-that our associates can have on us. So often, people do what they have no intention of doing-all because of peer pressure or, as many say, because they fell into bad company, with disastrous results.

Again, this moralism is a truth anyone may recognize. One does not have to be a Jehovah's Witness or attend a Kingdom Hall to know this. Yet an everyday moralistic truth is not our true problem. So once again, this only explains the means by which men choose to do the particular sins they do.

So in conclusion, all of these explanations for why we do the particular sins we do does not answer the deeper question. If none of these things affected a particular person, does this mean that person is not a sinner in desperate need of Christ?

All of this assumes a freewill of man to be able to choose the right path and ignores his evil heart and desperate need for Christ. It ignores the covenantal nature of Adam's relationship in the Garden of Eden. It ignores Adams Federal Headship over all of mankind. It ignores the biblical meaning of Christ's death and resurrection. In sum, it ignores the Gospel.

In the next post, we will see the fundamental problem of freewill pervading the end of evil deeds.

This Week's Watchtower

2010-09-25T11:30:00.000-07:00

My friend Russell, the JW, stopped by with his weekly Watchtower tract. In this Sept 1, 2010, issue there are a couple of articles that I will just not be able to let pass by without comment. The first two are tied together, Why Do People Do Bad Things, The End of Evil Deeds Is Assured!, and He Dignifies Us With Free Will. A separate article, 500 Years of Calvinism: What Has It Achieved?, will also need a few comments.

Perhaps later today and tomorrow I will manage to get to them.

Reformation Weekend

2010-09-20T17:36:00.001-07:00

I guess it is now official. This year's Reformation Weekend Conference at FBC St. Francis will have Bill Ascol speaking on, A Great God Demands a Great Response. If you are able to attend, please come!

First Baptist Church
420 S. Scott

St. Francis, KS

A Great God Demands a Great Response

Meeting times:

Friday 7:00 pm (session 1) The Great Confession

Saturday 10:30 am (session 2) The Great Commitment

12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

1:30 pm (session 3) The Great Commandment Part 1

3:00 pm (break)

7:00 pm (session 4) The Great Commandment Part 2

Sunday 10:30 am (session 5) The Great Commission

12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

For more information call: 785-332-3921 or 785-332-2959, or email: fbc67756@sbcglobal.net. Our website is: http://fbcstfrancis.org. Lodging is available in homes on a first come basis. In St. Francis there is Dusty Farmer Motel 785-332-8924, Cook's Empire Motel 785-332-2231, and Homesteader Motel 785-332-607. In Goodland (35 miles south) there are a number of motels including Comfort Inn 785-899-7181, Days Inn 785-890-3644, Super 8 785-890-7566, Motel 6, 785 890-5672, and Holiday Inn Express 877 863-4780.

Our conference speaker will be Bill Ascol. Bill is Senior Pastor at Bethel Baptist Church in Owasso, Oklahoma. He began his ministry at Bethel in September 2005 after 28 years ministering in Louisiana Baptist churches. He is a former Vice-President of the Executive Board of the Louisiana Baptist Convention as well as a former President of the Louisiana Baptist Pastors' Conference. He currently serves as the Chairman of the Board of Founders Ministries and is the Coordinator of the Saved By Faith Youth Challenge Camps for young people. He received the MDiv degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Bill and his wife, Karen, have five children and three grandchildren.

St. Francis is located in Cheyenne County, Kansas, in the far reaches of Northwest Kansas. As of the 2000 census the county population is 3,165. The 2006 census estimate is 2,911. Within Cheyenne County are the cities of Bird City and Saint Francis. As of the 2000 census, St Francis had a population of 1,497. The 2006 census estimate is 1360. You can read more about the area at the following web sites.

Reconciliation: Theology Matters

2010-09-12T15:17:00.001-07:00

Well, the next chapter is called, Important Recall Notice. It is only two pages. Here is one paragraph,

The Manufacturer, who is nether liable nor at fault for this defect [sin: Sub-sequential Internal Non-morality], is providing factory authorized repair and service free of charge to correct this SIN defect. The Repair Technician, Jesus, has most generously offered to bear the entire burden of the staggering cost of these repairs. There is no additional fee required!

After reading these two pages, I must admit I was not able to read through the last chapter, Consecration. I did take a brief look at it though. On page 47 he defines a consecrated Christian.

A consecrated Christian is a person who has been separated attitudinally from the unregenerate as well as the carnal Christian in that their desire tends towards honoring Christ in their life.

First, I must say that I agree with some of the things I have read about the Christian life. However, this definition is just not a biblically sound premise to view the Christian life. As a Christian, who stands firmly in the Reformed camp, I simply reject the definition offered above. There is no such thing as a "carnal Christian". Now I realize the problems within this kind of discussion that leads to the attempt to make categories such as carnal Christian. Again, these false categories cause more confusion and tend to come out of poor theological systems than they do Scripture.

In conclusion, there is much good to Pastor Ward Clinton's book, Reconciliation. A brand new Christian might even find it helpful. In the end, I take the position that Theology Matters, and this method of teaching and the particular doctrines that Pastor Clinton seems to hold are too inconsistent to make this a book one that I would recommend.

Quote of the Day

2010-09-10T21:24:00.000-07:00

Rush

You know what? If the media, three years ago, if the media had spent half the time trying to figure out who Barack Obama is, just half the time as they have spent on who is this pastor in Florida, Terry Jones, if they would have invested half as much time in Obama as they have in this preacher, he might not be president today. Do you realize, a guy with a flock of 50 in the church, who's talking about burning some books, he's getting more media attention than the president of the United States got, in terms who he is, what motivates him, what's inspired him, how did he turn out this way, how did he become such a fringe figure? Which is understandable, because that's who they are -- they're protecting Obama. They're all members of the ruling class; he's one of them.

I couldn't agree more.

Reconciliation part 4, Propitiation

2010-09-10T17:13:00.000-07:00

OK, I have finished the third chapter, Propitiation. Now I really am not certain how to interact with this chapter. It has almost nothing on the subject. In fact, most of the chapter restates much of what has already been argued for in the earlier chapters. If I had to recommend to an average layman Clinton's Reconciliation verses a far more difficult book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross by Leon Morris, on the subject of propitiation, I would probably lean to the more technical work by Morris.

One positive aspect is that he has a correct hermeneutic in how one should read the Old Testament. He states on page 36,

By viewing the Old Testament system of sacrifices through New Testament lenses it is fairly easy to realize that that system pointed forward in time to the work that would be accomplished by Christ Jesus.

However, he spends almost no time explaining the Old Testament sacrificial system.

Another positive aspect of this chapter is that Clinton does make clear he rejects Eternal Justification. Page 39 starts with this paragraph,

If persons are justified by faith, then they are not justified from eternity, for we begin to believe at a given point in time, not eternity past else we would never fall into the class of unregenerate.

So now that we sort of have that cleared up, he then seems to muddy the waters. In the next paragraph he states,

In order to be justified by the law one must keep the whole law without failing in even the smallest particular and no man has been able to do that which is why we need that measure of faith which God imparts to each one of us in the necessary quantity.

I have no idea what he means by "imparts to each one of us in the necessary quantity". For he later writes about regeneration in the power of the Holy Spirit,

A great deal of debate still flows as to whether or not the human agent has the ability to resist the overtures of the Holy Spirit...

While he admits on page 32, the previous chapter,

The children of disobedience, also known as unregenerate or pre-converted, are incapable of doing a single thing which is pleasing to God...

It should be obvious as to what power the Holy Spirit has in the raising of a dead sinner, but that is part of the problem when one holds to a Roman view of man and grace. This causes the language barrier in which we end up talking past each other.

For instance, on page 43 he cites Romans 8:32,

He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Now I must grant that this book is meant to be brief, therefore my criticism of this may be harsh, but I simply cannot see how this text can be used and not explained. It is his citations of texts like this that cause me to think he must be arguing some kind of reformed/Calvinistic position. Paul is arguing in Romans 8 the perfection of the work of God in Christ, not a mere hypothetical salvation. Paul is arguing that Christ's work of satisfying the wrath of God is a perfect work in behalf of the elect alone. Which is why Paul gives to us the result of this work in what has been called the "Great Chain of Salvation".

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

To which Paul concludes,

Rom 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

In conclusion, the chapter on propitiation has almost nothing on the subject. Even the classic text of 1 John 2:2 is not mentioned until it is quoted as the last paragraph, 1 John 2:1-6. He also continues with the use of cliches, ie: comparing Jesus to a battery, etc..

So although there is much good that is said, it passes by the great opportunities to demonstrate from the text of Scripture what Christ's work has done, especially in the area of propitiation.

Reconciliation part 3, The Language Barrier

2010-09-06T10:00:00.000-07:00

1) Now his second chapter, Reconciliation, starts with mentioning conflict resolution in the context of the now defunct system of Apartheid. He discusses the "academic circles attempts" to use reconciliation without the "religious" aspects of forgiveness. He also offers a personal anecdote from his experience "in the Philippines at the end of the Marcos Presidency"

So nearly half of the chapter was a discussion of the political aspects of secular life. Since he chose to start his discussion in this fashion, perhaps showing how America's issues of racism and slavery and native Americans would have been related to apartheid. This would have given his reader, at least this one, a more experiential context to understand his overall point. Overall, if you are familiar with certain political events, this portion may offer some insight into the term reconciliation. If not, then perhaps not.

2) He then rightly points out that man is an enemy of God. That God's justice could easily have "left all mankind to suffer eternal destruction". He then cites Col 1:19-23 and Romans 5:10 to demonstrate that man is the problem. He very clearly takes a strong stand that God does not need reconciliation, only man does. He states on page 30,

This is where some confusion tends to creep in and we need to remember it is not that God is reconciled to man it is that man may be reconciled to God for that is the language of the New Testament...[sic]

This seems one-sided at best. Simply citing verses that man is reconciled to God as if God's wrath left God neutral on the subject or on the sidelines in the war between God and man is to miss God's hostility toward man. God needed to reconcile man to Himself precisely because of the many truths Pastor Clinton already laid down.

The truth of the bible is that not only is man a law-breaker and alienated from God, but that God is offended at man. God's holiness is at enmity and is hostile with man's sin. As a passage cited by Pastor Clinton states,

You are not a God who take pleasures in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong. (Psalm 5:4-5)

Some commentators have argued that God is reconciling man to Himself precisely because man doesn't want to be reconciled. It is God that must have His wrath appeased. This topic is dealt with in the next chapter, Propitiation.

3) The last observation I'd like to interact with is difficult. Being that Pastor Clinton is a Nazarene pastor, it is difficult to believe that he would write from a Reformed perspective on soteriology. On the one hand, since he is a Nazarene pastor it would seem Pastor that Clinton would be of the Wesleyan tradition on the will of man. Yet, he makes an argument about the nature of man that almost had me convinced he was taking the Reformed position on soteriology. For instance, on page 31 Clinton states,

Ever since Adam's failure it is an established fact that before conversion every one of us is in a state of alienation from God. Apart from the grace of God, men are sinful: sinful by nature because we have inherited the depravity of Adam's fall; sinful by choice because our willful disobedience to the law of God.

He also states on the next page,

The children of disobedience, also known as unregenerate or preconverted, are incapable of doing a single thing which is pleasing in God's sight...

Yet here is part of the problem. He offers a reason why they are children of disobedience. He states that because of "what they are doing..." is their cause for disobedience, not their nature in Adam. He concludes that since God has offered the means of reconciliation and men reject that reconciliation, "therefore the atonement cannot be affected [sic]".

This seems to make his argument not as precise as it could be. He also offers an analogy on the top of page 33 as to man's response to the free offer of salvation in Christ,

It is not unlike the man who has been convicted of a crime and standing before the judge is offered a pardon yet refuses the pardon; the punishment will take place.

I have heard this illustration a thousand times. I'd like to ask something simple. Where are pardons merely offered? Have you ever heard of a judge merely offereing a pardon freely?Perhaps you have heard of President Jackson' pardon of George Wilson? Wilson was in fact pardoned, yet refused it. Yet this kind of miscarriage of justice seems to be the philosophical basis for human autonomy. the irony in Wilson's pardon is that evil men would have taken it. It was the penitent man that rejected it. So again, such a view is backwards.

He then cites three men from the Reformed tradition in support of his view, T. Manton, Thomas Goodwin and John Owen. I must confess that this caught me off guard. It is true that God's provision in Christ is not effectual in our personal lives until we come to Christ through faith and repentance. If he is suggesting that these authors would have thought that Christ's work of reconciling men to God could only be effectual if men chose from their free-will is to turn their writings upside down.

There is simple method as to why the above men may be quoted in support for Pastor Clinton's position. They are merely describing what salvation looks like. The quote from T. Manton does exactly that.

We are actually justified, pardoned, and reconciled when we repent and believe. Whatever thoughts and purposes of grace God may have towards us from eternity. We are under the fruits of sin till we become penitent believers.

Now don't misunderstand my point. I agree that the Gospel is to be offered to all without exception or distinction. Therefore there are men who will hear and reject the Gospel. But again, there seems to be a language barrier in what exactly is meant by his illustration. Is he arguing that God's grace is ineffectual until the man does something? Or is he simply offering a description by offering the poor "reject the pardon" analogy?

If he is arguing the reformed perspective, perhaps he is arguing for some form of Eternal justification when he wrote on page 33,

Therefore, though we do not believe that the atonement produced a change in the mind of God, so as to turn Him from hatred to love, for He loves His people with an everlasting love, (Jer 31:3), or that it was a price paid to procure His favor, still, there was a sacrifice offered, a propitiation made, whereby sin was pardoned, blotted out, and forever put away.

If he is really suggesting some form of Eternal Justification, then again, he is in error. All of the Reformers down through the centuries have rejected Eternal Justification. Due to the length of such a discussion, I will defer the reader to this article.

In conclusion, there is much to be commended in this chapter despite the political first half of the chapter which I am not certain was all that helpful.

Knowing he is not a Calvinist, I find the language barrier needing to be scaled. We are using the same terminology, but I am not convinced we are meaning the same things.

If one truly holds to the Federal Headship of Adam and the imputation of sin to the sons and daughters by nature, then one must be consistent in seeing that Christ by His mediatorial work has procured all that is needed to redeem His people, including faith and repentance. Thereby all who are in union with the Son of God by faith may never claim the slightest boast for even their own will.

On the other hand, Eternal Justification denies that men ever really needed to be saved in any real sense. Salvation seems to be a mere formality. But even Pastor Clinton recognizes that Ephesians 5 states that we were all children of wrath. Therefore, we all are in need of a true rescue from sin and condemnation.

Reconciliation part 2, sIn

2010-09-06T07:24:00.000-07:00

The first chapter entitled Sin, is a chapter that possess much truth and doesn't pull any punches. Pastor Ward Clinton describes sinners in a way that many pastors will not. In fact, Pastor Clinton goes to great lengths to explain the doctrine of "Original Sin" without ever calling it that. For instance, on page 9 he differentiates personal sin from being a sinner.

Actual sin or personal sin is a voluntary violation of a known law of God by a morally responsible person.

On the same page he explains why men sin.

We are legally constituted sinners neither by what we are, genetically, nor by what we are doing, but by the disobedience of our Federal Head, Adam.

I must say this is quite refreshing. How many local pastors explain the doctrine of Original Sin?! He writes on the next page,

The concept of Adam as the head of the human race and that his actions determined the natural direction for all his posterity is clearly taught in the Holy Bible.

By which he then quotes Romans 5:12,18,19 to defend his thesis.

Now for the many good things that he writes, the style of the chapter itself is not exactly one that I would use in a Sunday School class. Perhaps it is just the reader trying to understand the flow of argumentation and missing it, so the problem very well may be me.

However, it is one thing to say that the Bible teaches "Federal Headship", it is another thing to explain it. Pastor Clinton is saying true things without laying down a proper foundation as to "Why" Original sin is the teaching of Scripture. In other words, why does Paul assert in Romans 5 that we are in union with Adam in his sin? This is a glaring problem from one (me) who approaches this from a Covenantal Theological position.

Also, the chapter is so full of cliches, that the thoughts being expressed lose their connection. For instance, the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 13 ends with this statement,

See Matthew 18-23-35 in His guidebook, the Holy Bible, also known as the basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. [a popular song by Burlap to Cashmere?]

The next paragraph starts,

Unfortunately for fallen, unreconciled man, physical death is the separation of the soul from the body, expulsion from the earth, not annihilation.

Although these things are related, the author just seems to jump from one thing to the next. A reader may very well be totally unfamiliar with the doctrine of "annihilation". How this is related to being a sinner is simply not sufficiently laid out.

For another example, the very first page quotes Anon, Thomas Carlyle and Benjamin Franklin as sources for the definition of sin to which he starts,

Sin exists. Sin separates man from God. What is sin anyway? Mr. Franklin's little statement quoted above can take us a long way toward understanding the Ten Commandments: The "Thou Shalt" and "Thou Shalt Nots" thingy, and the purpose behind them; obey them and have a better life ignore them and things won't go as well. Generally speaking, things tend to trend downhill when we ignore God's word.

It is this type of presentation that I think leads to some inconsistent problems that show up in the next chapter.

In conclusion, although much more material could have been used to lay a solid foundation for explaining why man is a sinner, it is obvious he is attempting to be brief in that area while not holding back passages that speak to God's hatred for the wicked and his assured punishment on the "day of wrath".

Perhaps this chapter would have been better if he avoided the use of so many cliches and that the thoughts argued for were consistently presented. But hey, I truly appreciate the fact that a local pastor wrote a book in order to not only encourage his flock in sound doctrine, but even getting his book in a local library.

Reconciliation by Ward Clinton

2010-09-05T10:29:00.000-07:00

My wife, the librarian, brought home a book by a local pastor, Ward Clinton. The book has a simple title, Reconciliation. The book is a whopping 61 pages, so on the surface, it is obviously an attempt to be an easy read for some basic Christian doctrine

Over the next few days I'd like to interact with the book. It has five chapters, Sin, Reconciliation, Propitiation, Important Recall Notice, and Consecration.

I have known Pastor Ward Clinton for several years. I have served with him during Color Guard services for Memorial Day and Veteran's Day. It truly has been a pleasure to have him as a friend for these years. So I hope that the thoughts offered in my interaction will be seen as not only coming from a friend, but thoughts that respect this man as a pastor and a lover of truth. It is clear to me in our conversation over the years that Pastor Clinton is a well read and intelligent man. So whatever criticms or points with which we may disagree upon, they will be with a man far more learned than myself. May God's Word continually be the arbiter between all Christians.

Universe Is Not That Remarkable

2010-09-02T15:47:00.001-07:00

Stephen Hawking says there is no God did not create the universe in this Yahoo News story. Nothing new here. Previously he had written that reason would eventually triumph.

He wrote in A Brief History ... "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

Now he argues even further. According tot he article,

In his latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.

"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

I have to wonder. How does he know reason is the ultimate authority simply because he is able to use it? I have to wonder. Did he write/author his book or was that even necessary to produce a book? If I follow his reasoning, shouldn't books just fall out of the sky? I mean come on, they just are not that "remarkable."

White Verses Silverman

2010-08-31T20:24:00.000-07:00

Last night, Dr. White debated atheist David Silverman, and I, like Jamin Hubner, forgot it was on and came across it when I turned on my computer. Hubner has written a brief review with which I could not agree more.

I write this just as the Q & A is beginning, and I truly believe this is one of (if not) the most useful Christian vs. atheist debate ever on record - even amongst presuppositional Christian vs. atheist debates (and I've listened to my share of atheist debates, I assure you). Why so?

To which Jamin Hubner then offer 3 major reasons. I must agree that I have not heard of a "smack down" against an atheist like this since probably the infamous Bahnsen/Stein debate.

In the end, smack down or not, what really impressed me the most was that James White did not shrink back from explaining the necessity and sufficiency of God's sovereign grace in the life of a dead and wicked rebellious sinner.

I just hope the audio gets posted soon. It will certainly be an encouragment to believers and perhaps a tool that thoroughly explains why Christianity is true to a world that desperately needs Christ.

Rush Says What Should Be Obvious

2010-08-25T15:06:00.000-07:00

I have found it interesting for many years now how Islamic Leaders will side and work with Communist countries (I realize that is not always the case). For instance, Sadam Hussein was a huge fan of Stalin. How a supposed Allah fearing man loves and imitates an atheist of the worst kind is beyond me.

Rush made this great observation on his program today that I wish would be repeated everywhere and to every Leftist in this country.

Put aside the subjective term "moderate Islam." Just put it aside for a moment and let's focus on an uncontested the fact. There is no separation of church and state in Islam. Now, as you know, to the American ruling class and the American left "separation of church and state"is one of the most important things they believe exists in this country. They don't want any religious person having one damn thing to say about anything political in this country.

And all of these people, from Katty Kay on up or down depending on where you want to put her in the scale here, look at religious people with slanted eyes, with distrust. They look at them through grimaces. There's a suspicion of religious people. They don't like them. "Separation of church and state!" They've even defined that in a way it was never meant constitutionally. "Separation of church and state," and yet here they are supporting "moderate Islam." Ms. Kay, do you realize there is no separation of church and state in Islam? It's one and the same. Are you going to demand separation of church and state among Muslims or Islamists in this country or in your own country of the UK? Every religious building in action in Islam is political.

That's how they look at it. It's the core reason there should not be a mosque built at Ground Zero. There's no separation of church and state here with this bunch -- and yet with the ruling class in this country, the American left, "Separation of church and state, why, that's fundamental! We gotta have separation of church and state. We can't have any Pat Robertsons running around. We can't have any Billy Grahams running around impacting policy. We -- we -- we can't have it! We -- we can't elect these rabid, right-wing Christians! We can't have this. They're not allowed." But Islamists are not separated from the church in any way. The defining thing is the religion. Some might say the religion is the government.

Now just in case you may try the "moderate" Muslim argument here, Rush makes another reference to Andy McArthy's article.

RUSH: I just want to clarify something Andy McCarthy said. He did not say that there aren't any moderate Muslims. He says in his piece that there are millions of moderate Muslims. What he says is there's no moderate Islam, that the doctrine is not moderate for all the reasons we've been detailing, i.e., separation church and state. For example, what does the ICLU say about all this, the Islamic Civil Liberties Union? There isn't one. We have an ACLU but there is not an Islamic Civil Liberties Union getting in to help adjudicate disputes within the religion.

So why do Leftists side with Islamic leaders?

In the Hamasque issue, the American left sees conservatives opposed to it, and therefore since they hate us more than they hate anybody else, they have to support the mosque. 'Cause, frankly, I don't think they care. This is the first time I've ever heard the American left be so devoted to defending a religion. I don't remember it. I can't think of a time. Mostly the American left acts scared to death of it. Separation, church and state, I mean what the hell's the purpose of the ACLU? What's the purpose of Barry Lynn? The purpose is to wipe out religion. The Southern Poverty Law Center, all of these groups exist basically attacking right wing religious people. They do it under the guise of racism, bigotry, being opposed to all that. But now all of a sudden out of the blue, the biggest supporters of a mosque and Islam are the American left. Even if you were to tell 'em, "Hey, hey, hey, hey, there's no separation of church and state in Islam," it wouldn't matter. They oppose us. They hate us more than they hate anything else.

We are most certainly living in dangerous times when the President of the united States think Islam is a religion that is seeking to be at peace with the world. We need to get past Anonymous' political correctness and understand the real threat in the world.

Faithful Explains To Talkative About True Saving Grace

2010-08-24T19:55:00.000-07:00

I have been reading Pilgrim's Progress with my 4-year-old. I realize he does not know most of what I am talking about, but he wants me to read it anyway. I thought this portion of Faithful's conversation with Mr. Talkative was quite insightful.

Faithful: A work of grace in the soul discovereth itself, either to him
that hath it, or to standers-by.

To him that hath it, thus: It gives him conviction of sin, especially the defilement of his nature, and the sin of unbelief, for the sake of which he is sure to be damned, if he findeth not mercy at God’s hand, by faith in Jesus Christ. This sight and sense of things worketh in him sorrow and shame for sin. Psa. 38:18; Jer. 31:19; John 16:8; Rom. 7:24; Mark 16:16; Gal. 2:16; Rev. 1:6. He findeth, moreover, revealed in him the Saviour of the world, and the absolute necessity of closing with him for life; at the which he findeth hungerings and thirstings after him; to which hungerings, etc., the promise is made.

Now, according to the strength or weakness of his faith in his Saviour, so is his joy and peace, so is his love to holiness, so are his desires to know him more, and also to serve him in this world. But though, I say, it discovereth itself thus unto him, yet it is but seldom that he is able to conclude that this is a work of grace; because his corruptions now, and his abused reason, make his mind to misjudge in this matter: therefore in him that hath this work there is required a very sound judgment, before he can with steadiness conclude that this is a work of grace. John 16:9; Gal. 2:15,16; Acts 4:12; Matt. 5:6; Rev. 21:6.

To others it is thus discovered:

1. By an experimental confession of his faith in Christ.

2. By a life answerable to that confession; to wit, a life of holiness-heart-holiness, family-holiness, (if he hath a family,) and by conversation-holiness in the world; which in the general teacheth him inwardly to abhor his sin, and himself for that, in secret; to suppress it in his family, and to promote holiness in the world: not by talk only, as a hypocrite or talkative person may do, but by a practical subjection in faith and love to the power of the word. Job 42:5,6; Psa. 50:23; Ezek. 20:43; Matt. 5:8; John 14:15; Rom. 10:10; Ezek. 36:25; Phil. 1:27; 3:17-20. And now, sir, as to this brief description of the work of grace, and also the discovery of it, if you have aught to object, object; if not, then give me leave to propound to you a second question.

How many assume they are Christians without testing their own faith in light of God's Word?