Riding At the Cat House

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

Have You Prayed About Your Faith's Truth?

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

[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

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

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

This video on the development of babies is simply amazing.

Merry Christmas Trees & the Second Commandment

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

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

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.