Finally, a Christian peacemaker called into Rush's program and tried to explain his beliefs. He expressed the idea that through non-violent means, peace could be achieved because that is the way Jesus did it. Another Christian Peacemaker said that Muslims are our brothers, so therefore we need to try to make peace with them.
The problem with a lie is that there is always some truth mixed in. It is true that Christians are to use the weapons of warfare given to them by their Savior. Weapons such as prayer and faith and righteousness and truth are the means to victory. The kingdom of God is to advance through nonviolent means. Is that what the caller is talking about?
I suggest these so-called Christians remove the term Christian from the name and call themselves Campoloites. Perhaps Campoloism should have 501 status with the IRS. In this way, confusion and obfuscation could be avoided.
These Campoloites desire to combat evil in the world. The problem is that they see the United States government as being the evil in this world. Terrorists are the way they are because of us evil Americans. The United States Government will achieve peace when there is victory. God uses the Law and the power of governments as a means to maintain peace.
Biblical peace with God however will never be achieved through Campoloism or Government intervention. The idea of calling Muslims "brother" is not a means to true peace. Muslims will never be a Christian's brother. Christians will only reach peace with the Muslim world through the proclamation of the Gospel and the work of the Spirit in the conversion of sinners. With Campolo's view of conversion, I would not hold my breath peace will be achieved anytime soon.
Can anyone imagine Jesus coming to do "sit-ins" for peace? Is Jesus some kind of 60s flower child? I am not saying that non-violent protests have no place, but are we really going to hold a position that says force is never necessary?
These people claim that we can not force moral decisions like abortion upon people because they are religious views, but then they desire to force their religious views upon the state. In other words, they are equating the Kingdom of God with the United States Government. Therefore (they think) the U.S. should act in a fashion that reflects the (liberal) church in welfare and other left-wing programs. Is the U.S. Government the church?
Paul taught that one of the means for governments to maintain peace was by the power of the sword. Jesus claimed that He did not come to bring peace but a sword. Until peace is defined, there will be much confusion among those who think Campoloish.
These Campoloites think Jesus will only bring peace through peaceful means. I wonder what they will think when Jesus returns and by force of war cast out of his Kingdom everything that is sinful? Will they abandon Jesus when they see His so-called violent means for peace?
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Monday, March 20, 2006
The Smartest Man In the Room Is Largely Unknown
A great example for the necessity for presuppositional apologetics.
In today's Crosswalk Blog Albert Mohler dismantles arguments against Christian Scholarship. In fact, you can not have true Scholarship without Christian presuppositions.
There is more gray matter in one inch of his head than in a dozen of mine. Thank God for solid Christian men who engage the enemies of the faith.
In today's Crosswalk Blog Albert Mohler dismantles arguments against Christian Scholarship. In fact, you can not have true Scholarship without Christian presuppositions.
There is more gray matter in one inch of his head than in a dozen of mine. Thank God for solid Christian men who engage the enemies of the faith.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
ABCPSW Votes Next Month
Last September the ABCPSW (American Baptists churches Pacific South-west) announced that they would be no longer sending monies to the ABCUSA. In response "the denomination’s Executive Committee called for unity..."
Will someone will please explain to me what the call for unity means? Does it mean "Please agree with us."? Do I have to be liberal in my theology. Do I have to agree with Tony Campolo? Do I have to embrace heretical views too?
They also stated:
No one is arguing that the autonomy of the local church must be violated. The question still lingers. Should any local church be allowed to be a part of the ABCUSA? What is implicit in the above statement is that the New Testament is not sufficient in defining the church. I guess in ABC theology anything goes?
I would highly suggest to the ABCUSA that they need to take a hard look at what they are doing. Giving prominence to liberal leadership while many of the congregations are conservative is only asking for more trouble.
Theological liberalism and conservatism cannot co-exist. Why do conservatives try to reform something not reformable is beyond me? But is simply pulling out without setting a clear purpose a responsible decision? What will prevent theological liberalism from rising again in their newly forming group?
I am currently on a Reformed Baptist E-mail List. I am always amazed at the things they argue about. The Impeccability verses the Peccability of Christ. The Imputation of Christ's righteousness. How Elders of the local church should rule. The mode of baptism is sometimes discussed. They never however discuss whether homosexuality is something to be debated. The simple reason is they abide by a clear statement of faith, which is the London Baptist Confession of 1689.
I am not saying modern baptists need to adopt that creed, but without something that defines a covenantal fellowship of churches, will not the gross errors of the ABCUSA reoccur?
On April 29th, the ABCPSW will vote on whether or not to leave the ABCUSA. This is no small event in the life of a denomination. I would ask for those who are in Union with Christ to pray that the Spirit of God would lead His people through such a difficult matter. It is no easy thing to sever covenantal relationships.
Will someone will please explain to me what the call for unity means? Does it mean "Please agree with us."? Do I have to be liberal in my theology. Do I have to agree with Tony Campolo? Do I have to embrace heretical views too?
They also stated:
The General Board ... does not set policy for local congregations on theological or other issues. We are not hierarchical or Episcopal because we are a denominational family related by a series of voluntary covenantal relationships among autonomous congregations to partner together in mission,” the statement said. The board also cited its respect for the “autonomy and primacy of the local church.No theological issues are set? Does this mean Mormon churches can join us too? They say Jesus is Lord. Isn't that enough? This is the problem when there is a lack of Creeds and accountability. When denominations are looking for numbers as a sign of success, then they are doomed to take the wide path.
No one is arguing that the autonomy of the local church must be violated. The question still lingers. Should any local church be allowed to be a part of the ABCUSA? What is implicit in the above statement is that the New Testament is not sufficient in defining the church. I guess in ABC theology anything goes?
I would highly suggest to the ABCUSA that they need to take a hard look at what they are doing. Giving prominence to liberal leadership while many of the congregations are conservative is only asking for more trouble.
Theological liberalism and conservatism cannot co-exist. Why do conservatives try to reform something not reformable is beyond me? But is simply pulling out without setting a clear purpose a responsible decision? What will prevent theological liberalism from rising again in their newly forming group?
I am currently on a Reformed Baptist E-mail List. I am always amazed at the things they argue about. The Impeccability verses the Peccability of Christ. The Imputation of Christ's righteousness. How Elders of the local church should rule. The mode of baptism is sometimes discussed. They never however discuss whether homosexuality is something to be debated. The simple reason is they abide by a clear statement of faith, which is the London Baptist Confession of 1689.
I am not saying modern baptists need to adopt that creed, but without something that defines a covenantal fellowship of churches, will not the gross errors of the ABCUSA reoccur?
On April 29th, the ABCPSW will vote on whether or not to leave the ABCUSA. This is no small event in the life of a denomination. I would ask for those who are in Union with Christ to pray that the Spirit of God would lead His people through such a difficult matter. It is no easy thing to sever covenantal relationships.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Meet Our Son
With the wonders of modern technology, we can now peek into the world that was once hidden. A world that God uses to literally make miracles. Everyone, please meet who we think is Jacob.
The left picture is his legs. Yes, that is either a turtle or umbillical cord or....
He is either yawning or swallowing fluid. Those hands sure keep mom busy. At one point, he actually looked like he was waving as he was driving by in that convertible.
Steph is at 21 weeks. So I suppose we had better get the house ready for this little boy.
We did take the kids out of school so that they could see this with us. Steven was so excited that the baby is a boy that his head about hit the ceiling. I think Rachel will benefit being the only girl, and I think she knows it.
The left picture is his legs. Yes, that is either a turtle or umbillical cord or....
He is either yawning or swallowing fluid. Those hands sure keep mom busy. At one point, he actually looked like he was waving as he was driving by in that convertible.
Steph is at 21 weeks. So I suppose we had better get the house ready for this little boy.
We did take the kids out of school so that they could see this with us. Steven was so excited that the baby is a boy that his head about hit the ceiling. I think Rachel will benefit being the only girl, and I think she knows it.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Private Property Not Fundamental In Garden City
Over the last few days there have been several radio commercials promoting a bill in Kansas that will defend Private Property Rights. I have found this very encouraging. I am amazed at how fast a man's blood will boil when he discovers a government taking property illegally.
This morning on Argi-Talk radio AM 1030, I was shocked to hear that the municipality of Garden City, KS sent a letter to the Kansas legislature asking them to "preserve their right" of eminent domain for "economic development". The three guests were just a little hot under the collar discussing a city that thought it had some Constitutional Right to take one person's property and give it to another for "economic purposes".
The Framer's of the U.S. Constitution knew Private Property Rights were absolutely fundamental in order to maintain a free republic. These truths are self evident. If they are denied, then so goes this great republic. This is the problem of embracing secularism. Secularism cannot defend itself against the cultic mind and tyranny of Islam, nor can it remain friendly to the Constitution.
Christianity must be the worldview of our governments. For only with Historic Protestant Christianity will true freedom reign in this great land.
This morning on Argi-Talk radio AM 1030, I was shocked to hear that the municipality of Garden City, KS sent a letter to the Kansas legislature asking them to "preserve their right" of eminent domain for "economic development". The three guests were just a little hot under the collar discussing a city that thought it had some Constitutional Right to take one person's property and give it to another for "economic purposes".
The Framer's of the U.S. Constitution knew Private Property Rights were absolutely fundamental in order to maintain a free republic. These truths are self evident. If they are denied, then so goes this great republic. This is the problem of embracing secularism. Secularism cannot defend itself against the cultic mind and tyranny of Islam, nor can it remain friendly to the Constitution.
Christianity must be the worldview of our governments. For only with Historic Protestant Christianity will true freedom reign in this great land.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Another Reason For Presuppositional Apologetics
Remaining faithful in times of apostasy is a difficult thing for Christians. Our desire to see people come to faith in Christ can at times cloud our judgment. We so intently desire to see conversions that we unwittingly give in to worldly thinking.
On AOMin's blog, Dr. White speaks at length of a former student, who has departed the faith. The former student is quoted on a Blog as saying:
To deny truth and the truth that is found in Christ is to be in folly. It is arrogant to think man can find his way without the one who created him. Christ is the Creator and the fountain head of all truth.
I am glad to see solid Christian men, who stand on the truth and for the truth. It would be very tempting for most pastors to try to reason with this man using human wisdom. We must trust the Gospel to be the power of God unto salvation. God is only honored when His Gospel is proclaimed with clarity and honestly. To do otherwise is to not trust the clear commands of Christ.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, not the end conclusion.
On AOMin's blog, Dr. White speaks at length of a former student, who has departed the faith. The former student is quoted on a Blog as saying:
Atheists are the true worshippers of the true god, The God Who is Not. Our praise to her comes in our refusal to debase her by connecting her with backwards, morally-bankrupt world religions or with this uncaring, painful universe. Our thoughts of her are too high. We are better, more faithful worshippers than any religious person who profanes the concept of the true god by associating it with their hideous faith.Notice he says that Christianity is morally bankrupt. On what basis does an atheist make this claim? Where does his knowledge of morality arrive from? How does he account for the laws of logic that he is using in his statements (not that he is consistent even there)?
To deny truth and the truth that is found in Christ is to be in folly. It is arrogant to think man can find his way without the one who created him. Christ is the Creator and the fountain head of all truth.
I am glad to see solid Christian men, who stand on the truth and for the truth. It would be very tempting for most pastors to try to reason with this man using human wisdom. We must trust the Gospel to be the power of God unto salvation. God is only honored when His Gospel is proclaimed with clarity and honestly. To do otherwise is to not trust the clear commands of Christ.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, not the end conclusion.
Monday, March 13, 2006
McCain/Feingold Especially McCain Needs To Go
So Senator McCain is now going to court conservative leaders including religious conservatives. I find it ironic that those who pass laws restricting free speech specifically protected by the First Amendment would then snuggle up to the men they muzzled.
Was it not enough for President Johnson's gag rule by giving the IRS power to revoke non-profit status from preachers who take a political stand in their pulpits? Now we have the First Amendment "chucked under the bus" with the McCain-Feingold Act. It literally restricts free speech with devastating effects.
Just a little history trivia to remind us all of something. There would be no First Amendment if it were not for preachers! There would have been no Revolution if it were not for preachers! The Constitution is not a suicide pact!
Perhaps the conservative party should chuck McCain under the bus.
I wonder what the world would be like today if there was a McCain/Feingold law in the days of say...1776?
Was it not enough for President Johnson's gag rule by giving the IRS power to revoke non-profit status from preachers who take a political stand in their pulpits? Now we have the First Amendment "chucked under the bus" with the McCain-Feingold Act. It literally restricts free speech with devastating effects.
Just a little history trivia to remind us all of something. There would be no First Amendment if it were not for preachers! There would have been no Revolution if it were not for preachers! The Constitution is not a suicide pact!
Perhaps the conservative party should chuck McCain under the bus.
I wonder what the world would be like today if there was a McCain/Feingold law in the days of say...1776?
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Working With Apostates?
Today I have received my ABMen's Men-In-Action. On page 4 is an article "A Word from your President: The Dividing Issue of Human Sexuality." There is no name attached to the article so this will simply be an open response.
I was encouraged to read that the author believed what is written in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is true, and that Paul accurately describes sin. He states in the third and final paragraph that the Scriptures are "simple...to read and understand....So the question at hand is, are the Scriptures true or not?" He then asks for American Baptists to not argue about things that take us away from Jesus.
He is right that we need to believe what God defines as sin. The problem is that he misses the point. Liberals within the denomination do not believe God has defined homosexuality as sin. Liberals use arguments in order to obscure the text of Scripture.
Therefore the President (of ABMen I presume), has naively thought that by just saying, "Let's just all get along and preach Jesus" will somehow unite us. False teachers will not unite. They are not even able to define sin. Grace is something that frees us from social problems and social injustices (homosexuality being one of them). Therefore the Gospel in inherently weakened or denied.
In my own area, there American Baptist churches who are wondering how to deal with a denomination that allows any church to go in any direction pertaining to this issue. How do we yoke ourselves with churches that deny the clear Law of God? Why do we remain yoked with them? We are told the autonomy of the local church can't be overruled. This is true. But does that mean we must work with Apostate churches? Is this glorifying to Jesus when pastors will not stand for the truth? Why work with Liberals who redefine Jesus as just someone who wants to help out with our social problems?
A call to Pastors to embrace the inerrancy of the Scriptures would be a good place to start. The Chicago statement of faith would be a good direction. Perhaps a statement of faith or Creed that is clearly defined to discourage false teachers would help. I won't hold my breath though.
I was encouraged to read that the author believed what is written in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is true, and that Paul accurately describes sin. He states in the third and final paragraph that the Scriptures are "simple...to read and understand....So the question at hand is, are the Scriptures true or not?" He then asks for American Baptists to not argue about things that take us away from Jesus.
He is right that we need to believe what God defines as sin. The problem is that he misses the point. Liberals within the denomination do not believe God has defined homosexuality as sin. Liberals use arguments in order to obscure the text of Scripture.
Therefore the President (of ABMen I presume), has naively thought that by just saying, "Let's just all get along and preach Jesus" will somehow unite us. False teachers will not unite. They are not even able to define sin. Grace is something that frees us from social problems and social injustices (homosexuality being one of them). Therefore the Gospel in inherently weakened or denied.
In my own area, there American Baptist churches who are wondering how to deal with a denomination that allows any church to go in any direction pertaining to this issue. How do we yoke ourselves with churches that deny the clear Law of God? Why do we remain yoked with them? We are told the autonomy of the local church can't be overruled. This is true. But does that mean we must work with Apostate churches? Is this glorifying to Jesus when pastors will not stand for the truth? Why work with Liberals who redefine Jesus as just someone who wants to help out with our social problems?
A call to Pastors to embrace the inerrancy of the Scriptures would be a good place to start. The Chicago statement of faith would be a good direction. Perhaps a statement of faith or Creed that is clearly defined to discourage false teachers would help. I won't hold my breath though.
Ronald Nash Enters His Rest
For those of you who keep up with apologetics at all, a brother in Christ has gone to be with the Lord. Dr. Ronald Nash passed away yesterday.
Over the years I have benefitted from his articles. I also own a book that I need to finish (that seems to happen a lot around here), "Life's Ultimate Questions". It is a beginners book in the area of philosphy. It surveys the history of philosophy, and it's importance to Christianity and western civilzation.
May the Lord bless this brother's family with peace that only Christians possess.
Over the years I have benefitted from his articles. I also own a book that I need to finish (that seems to happen a lot around here), "Life's Ultimate Questions". It is a beginners book in the area of philosphy. It surveys the history of philosophy, and it's importance to Christianity and western civilzation.
May the Lord bless this brother's family with peace that only Christians possess.
Friday, March 10, 2006
The Myth of Neutrality
Over the last several months I have had several conversations with different people on the importance of Presuppositional Apologetics. So often, the enemies of the Faith require Christians to surrender their beliefs in order to argue facts on "Neutral Ground". Yet these kinds of conversations almost always lead to dead ends.
For many years now, whenever an evolutionist argues creationism with me, or when a person , who denies the resurrection of Christ, asks me to "prove it", I always now ask upfront, "What kind of argumentation or evidence is needed for me to persuade you to faith in Jesus Christ?" To this day, I either get a ridiculous answer, or no answer at all. The reason is simple. The idea of "Let's be neutral as we look at the evidence or argue philosophy is a huge myth.
Several years ago I heard a debate between atheist Stein and Christian Greg Bahnsen. For the first time, I heard presuppositional apologetics applied in a way that I only could do in the most infantile way. So after these several years, I finally got Bahnsen's book, Always Ready. I have only read the first three chapters. Instead of giving my thoughts, I thought I'd quote several key portions that may get you to buy it too. Every Christian layman that engages in evangelism and wants to explain his beliefs clearly will find this book a good place to start. (I realize I haven't finished the book yet, but I have surveyed it.)
Jesus is the Creator. He is the Sustainer of all things. He is the truth. Men are sinful and always surpressing truth. We simply can not deny these truths when attempting to proclaim the Faith to the world.
I simply could not even attempt to be able to teach this well. I am thankful that in each generation God has given us godly men to encourage the body of Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria
For many years now, whenever an evolutionist argues creationism with me, or when a person , who denies the resurrection of Christ, asks me to "prove it", I always now ask upfront, "What kind of argumentation or evidence is needed for me to persuade you to faith in Jesus Christ?" To this day, I either get a ridiculous answer, or no answer at all. The reason is simple. The idea of "Let's be neutral as we look at the evidence or argue philosophy is a huge myth.
Several years ago I heard a debate between atheist Stein and Christian Greg Bahnsen. For the first time, I heard presuppositional apologetics applied in a way that I only could do in the most infantile way. So after these several years, I finally got Bahnsen's book, Always Ready. I have only read the first three chapters. Instead of giving my thoughts, I thought I'd quote several key portions that may get you to buy it too. Every Christian layman that engages in evangelism and wants to explain his beliefs clearly will find this book a good place to start. (I realize I haven't finished the book yet, but I have surveyed it.)
"Is it really necessary to hold to the teachings of the Bible if you are to understand properly the War of 1812, the chemical composition of water, the plays of Shakespeare, or the rules of logic?"--pg 3
"...he must staunchly refuse to acquiesce to the mistaken demands of neutrality in his intellectual life; he must never consent to surrender his distinctive religious beliefs 'for the time being,' as though one might thereby arrive at genuine knowledge 'impatially.' The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord."--pg 7
Those who wish to gain dignity in the eyes of the world's intellectuals by wearing the badge of 'neutrality' only do so at the expense of refusing to be set apart by God's truth."--pg 7
"Therefore, the Christian who strives after neutrality in his thought is found actually to be endeavoring to efface the fact that he is a Christian! By denying his distinctive religious commitment he is reduced to apostate thought patterns and absorbed into the world of unbelief. Attempting to find a compromise between the demands of worldly neutrality (agnosticism) and the doctrines of Christ's word results in the rejection of Christ's distinctive Lordship by obliterating the great gulf between the thinking of the old man and that of the new man."--pg 9
"Do you have the courage of your Christian distinctives in scholarship, apologetics, and schooling, or have you been trying to wipe out the contrast between Christian thought and apostate thought by following the demands of neutrality?"-- pg 9
Jesus is the Creator. He is the Sustainer of all things. He is the truth. Men are sinful and always surpressing truth. We simply can not deny these truths when attempting to proclaim the Faith to the world.
I simply could not even attempt to be able to teach this well. I am thankful that in each generation God has given us godly men to encourage the body of Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
