God Loves and DOESN'T Have a Wonderful Plan for Your Life (Part 1)

This Verse Sounds Good... I Think I'll Use It!

Recently a pastor (Wiley Drake) of some Baptist church went on television defending his prayers. What was he praying for? He was praying for his political enemies to suffer according the words of Psalm 109. Now, this particular pastor represents a fairly small element of both Christianity and Baptists… but his biblical reasoning, unfortunately, is extremely common in Christian circles (of almost every stripe).

To be fair to him, the press reports that he wanted his enemies to die are contradicted by his own words... but by his choice of scripture he certainly was asking for that conclusion to be drawn. In trying to justify his stated intent (mere "condemnation" of his enemies) Drake referenced scripture and then went on to tell us that it doesn't really say what it clearly says. For his misuse of scripture, he deserves to be rebuked from both sides of the issue.

So what justification did the pastor use? He claimed the imprecatory Psalms (those which call down destruction) as his guide. He was, of course, condemned by Evangelicals from coast to coast, but the irony is that the vast majority of those Evangelicals use the Psalms in the same way! They may not use the imprecatory Psalms as he did, but they are guilty of interpreting the commands and promises of the other Psalms exactly as he interpreted the imprecatory Psalms (and in many, cases far more directly than even Drake has claimed).

If one feels free to start claiming the promises and commands of the Psalms as applicable in this age, he must be willing to interpret the imprecatory Psalms the same way (or should I say that he is STUCK having to do so?).

Recently, a guest on James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” broadcast quoted part of the passage that Drake used, Psalm 109:7, “Let another take his office” in regard to some judge or elected official. Dr. Dobson was thrilled and couldn’t believe this well-known and quoted-in-the-New-Testamen

t verse was actually in the Bible. Well, Doc, you might to look at the context:

Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.

Pretty strong meat there and quite appropriate for David to pray or for Peter to reference in regard to Judas (acts 1:20)… but certainly not appropriate for the age in which we live clearly not applicable to all men of all ages.

From The Orange County Register: "On Thursday Drake, 63, said in an interview that he was not, in fact, personally asking for the death of the Americans United members, rather that the Lord fulfill His will by condemning those who are against the Christian word."

In other words, Drake wants to claim the specific prayers of David for himself, but he also wants to decide what they mean. Psalm 109 is abundantly clear and neither he nor Dobson have any right to rip it from its context.


Study to Show Thyself Approved, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

I am sure Dr. Dobson doesn’t wish upon his political rivals that they be killed and their children become fatherless beggars! But because he is unfamiliar with the scriptures and even less familiar with the rules of proper interpretation (“right dividing the Word of Truth”) he unwittingly fell into praise for the out-of-context verse. Whoever it was who quoted that verse to him surely knew the rest of the text!

[For those who think I'm "judging" Dr. Dobson, his ministry proudly proclaims that "the world's foremost authority on the family" is "not a theologian." They use the Doctor's ignorance to excuse him from answering for his historically unholy alliances, so the claim is theirs, not mine alone.]

Unfortunately, millions of Christians use the same approach with the promises and commands of the Book of Psalms (and other books not directed to them) and we find ourselves in a world of confusion.

One such “promise” we extract from the the Books of poetry and wisdom as well as from the Hebrew prophets is summed up in this common phrase: “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.”

That sounds nice. God certainly does love us. He most definitely has reserved wonderful things for those who will call upon his name (especially in this age). But there is no secret plan out there just waiting to be discovered by the individual believer (“Your job: FIND IT”).

I suspect this short study will bring great relief to some and perhaps some consternation to others. Truth be told, it brings a little of both to my own heart!

So for those who think they chose the wrong college or for those scared to death you’re going to marry the wrong person… relax… God loves you and he’s not put a woman behind one door and a tiger behind 20 others trying to confuse you. No, he’s given us the guidelines and if we make that decision (or any other) as free from the flesh as possible, God has granted us tremendous liberty… and he will be with us no matter which way we choose.


PART 2 Coming Soon: God isn't hiding your wife hoping you get it right... or the entire universe will spin out of control!

Lent Comes of Age (Redux)

“You make the Word of God of none effect by your tradition.”

Christianity Today (repeated in The Alabama Baptist) notes that Lent is “one of the oldest Christian Traditions.” TAB laments that the season is not practiced in many Southern Baptist churches. I have a similar lament: that it is practiced at all in Southern Baptist churches (or by Evangelicals anywhere).

Let’s take a look at this “old Christian tradition.”

We can all agree that it certainly is not a practice given to us in the pages of scripture. So what does that mean? Well, it means that some guy made it up. Whether he made it up in AD 100 or in AD 2000 makes no difference; he still made it up. Now, if you are one who has no problem with stuff people make up that isn’t in the Bible, then this post isn’t necessarily directed at you.

I just can’t understand why groups which claim Sola Scriptura (authority comes from the scriptures alone) would fawn over such a glaringly unbiblical and historically deadly practice. It’s not terribly surprising, though, as more and more Evangelicals fawn over the “beautiful” and unbiblical practices that go on all around us (practices that were denied by the faithful for centuries - at the risk of their very lives).

How we got here…

OK, so we have some guy who created this “holy season” for himself. He likes it so much he starts telling his friends about it. They can’t seem to find it in their Bibles either so some of them don’t care to follow the “new Christian tradition.” This upsets the originator of Lent so he gets his like-minded buddies to form a council and they vote that Christians MUST practice Lent .

Some people still object, so the council then decides to start jailing people and threatening them with eternal damnation for denying this “aging Christian tradition.” Those who fail to practice it as directed must have their “sin” forgiven by performing acts approved by “the successors of the council” and beg to have their eternal damnation reversed (for not perfectly practicing what some guy made up).

A few centuries later, this “getting older Christian tradition” has millions in bondage of fear of eternal damnation. Tens of thousands more are killed for not practicing it. And those who do practice it, have to keep up with the changing rules from the “unchanging” churches.

In 2009, this “old Christian tradition” still has hundreds of millions under the threat of eternal damnation and millions more deluded into thinking that God is pleased that they’ve given up M&Ms. This isn’t funny and it certainly is not something to be admired.

Heresy and false shepherds were alive in Paul’s day… and more were expected. Shall we look at their “traditions” and say to Paul, “Well, Paul, that stuff may have been wrong in your day, but nearly 2000 years have passed! Surely, doctrines that old must have become truer over time”?

No, that would be silly (I’m trying to be nice).

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. - Acts 20

God’s dealings with man have changed at different times for different purposes, but those changes originated with God and are confirmed by his Holy Word. Now, we may debate the content of that Word, but we surely should be able to rule out anything contradictory to it.

Just because something is “old” doesn’t make it any better than if I invented it yesterday. Next time you hear about some “lovely” tradition, do as the “noble” Bereans did with Paul’s doctrines in Acts 17:11 “search the scriptures whether these things are so.”

The progression:

• Doesn’t Exist
• Some Guy Makes it Up
• It Gets a Little Older
• It Gets Even Older and Changes
• It Becomes “Ancient”
• Nobody Remembers that Somebody Made it Up

Time is not the arbiter of truth. The passage of time doesn’t make anything more “true” nor does it make the statements of men any more authoritative.

I’m trying to reconcile the words in Christianity Today… they used the adjective “Christian” for a practice they know well is not biblical (a doctrine connected to promises and condemnations that are antithetical to Evangelical Christianity). It makes me wonder… if I made up an unbiblical practice today and declared that failure to honor it as I dictate would amount to one risking his eternal fate… how quickly would Christianity Today and the Southern Baptist Convention swoon over my lovely “Christian tradition”?

You know what I'm giving up for Lent? The unscriptural traditions of men.

"Let no man judge you in regard to a holy day..." (Col 2:16)

Gay Virginity Pledge

Holding Out for that Special Guy

Former NBA player John Amaechi has formally come out of the closet. According to an interview he gave on ESPN he first experienced his true sexuality with a volleyball player while at Penn State. Why is it that when homosexuals find themselves drawn to other men that they feel compelled to act on those impulses? I knew I liked girls by the time I was five. I didn't have to go sleep with girls just to be sure.

Maybe I should have tried that line on the (women) cheerleaders at N.C. State. "Cindy, I've just discovered my sexuality. Can you help me prove that I'm a heterosexual?"

When I was a teenager I decided that I would wait until marriage. Since sexuality is such a special bond that many feel compelled to have it sanctioned by a "civil union" isn't it worth waiting for? Shouldn't a homosexual wait to share that special intimacy with his "soul mate" regardless of government benefit?

I didn't refrain from sex because I wanted to, I refrained because I made a moral decision to refrain. Can't I expect as much from homosexuals? Sure we all make mistakes, but need we ignore them? Certainly we don't need to "celebrate" our mistakes. Hey, I'm all for forgiveness and second chances, but it's hard to forgive someone when he's being made Grand Marshal of the Gay Pride parade because he didn't wait.

I keep waiting to hear the story of a young man who discovers he likes other boys and decides to take a "virginity pledge." He just wants to save himself for that special person with whom he plans on spending the rest of his life. He pledges to complete his college degree before settling down with a lifemate. Perhaps there is someone out there like that. Unfortunately, the homosexuals that the press keep placing before us and lauding as "heroes" always seem to have tales of their first or multiple "encounters" with other men.

Well, I don't think that fornicators or adulterers are worthy of praise just for being heterosexuals, so why can't I disapprove of any gay man who starts off his story with tales of his "activity"?


The Glaring Double Standard Nobody Will Address

I don't approve of hating anybody. I don't "hate" gay people. That is not the issue here. But I would like to look at former NBA star Tim Hardaway's statement that has caused such an uproar:

"I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

Imagine if some gay activist said the following:

"I don't like straight people and I don't like to be around straight people. I'm heterophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

Such a statement wouldn't raise an eyebrow. As Bob Dole would say, you know it, I know it and the American people know it. Even the statement "I hate straight people" would cause NBA Commissioner David Stern and the faculties of most American universities to run to sensitivity workshops to find out what they did to deserve such hatred.

What I've written is so obvious that it's hardly worth the bandwidth. It's a waste of time to even type it... but there it is. We know the double standard, we live the double standard, we accept the double standard. Sigh.


Can I Say This Then?

Since I disapprove of fornication and adultery, am I allowed to say that I disapprove of all such activity whether the guilty is gay or straight (or is it "non-gay")?

Can I chastise Ameichi for being "active" in his lifestyle? If we are allowed to be appalled at a heterosexual who is active with 10 partners at a time, can we at least be critical of a gay person who is active with 50 (I'm not saying Ameichi is)? At what point may I be critical of the "gay lifestyle"? I know... sigh... being gay frees one from any moral judgment whatsoever.


He Had Sex With a STRANGER in a PORNO Theater! Hello?

The "hero" in the Tom Hanks movie "Philadelphia" is infected with the AIDS virus after having sex with a stranger in a pornographic gay movie theater. If you missed that, this is the "hero" of the film. Am I allowed to be upset with this activity?

Here is an excerpt from the movie's many court scenes:

Q: What kind of movies do they show there?

Hanks: Gay movies.

Q: Gay pornographic movies?

Hanks: Yes.

Q. Do men have sex with each other in that theater?

Hanks: Some men.

Q. Have you ever had sex with anyone in that theater?

Hanks Yes. Once.

Source: HERE

[end]


Oscar bait! It's the courtroom climax (pardon the pun) of Twelve Angry Men, To KIll a Mockingbird, The Devil and Daniel Webster and Miracle on 34th Street wrapped up in one! What bravery! Only a real hero has sex with strangers in a porno theater!

OK, am I allowed to object to him now or does his homosexuality and AIDS excuse him from any moral judgments? I'd disapprove of a heterosexual going to a porn theater and having sex with a stranger. Pee Wee Herman was vilified for just being in a porn theater. Perhaps he was really just being a hero.

So I'll start to listen to the "gay is just another lifestyle choice" argument when homosexual boys and girls are urged to sign "Virgin Pledges;" when they advertise "Purity Rings" for gay teens; when large groups of gay men start gathering to celebrate monogamy; and when some standard of behavior is accepted as "moral."

For all the complaining and protesting that the "gay clergy" do, I don't believe I've heard any of them calling for abstinence or condemning all sex outside of a monogamous, "civil marriage" setting. Hey, "Bishop" you don't need the state to let you "marry" people. If you believe in monogamous, marriage-only sex, let's hear it. Condemn ALL pre-marital and extra-marital sex.

I don't "celebrate" heterosexual promiscuity. Come to think of it, I don't "celebrate" heterosexual sex at all. I practice it in the bond of marriage and disapprove of any other kind. If I ever fell I certainly wouldn't want a parade for doing so.

Are there any standards of sexual morality in the gay community?

Instead of "celebrating" John Amaechi's announcement, how about disapproving of his college fornication? Let him admit that his college liaison was an immoral choice and that he should have waited for "Mr. Right." Then we can forgive him and move on.

[INSERT TUMBLEWEEDS HERE]

Asleep in Christ or a Bodiless Soul?

Briefly Looking at the Issue of "Hell"

In Dave Hunt’s book “What Love is This?” he makes two arguments against the doctrine of the bondage of the will (i.e. the absolute will of God in every action of men – sins and all). This is an extreme version of Calvinism. He makes excellent arguments (my paraphrase follows):

* The witness of scripture is overwhelmingly in support of men being given choices and making choices for their actions. There are a few verses that are ambiguous on this point, so we should interpret the ambiguous by the clear. And even if the scriptural evidence was near 50/50, would we not still lean towards the doctrine of man’s personal responsibility for his choices?

* In defense of God’s character, how can we charge God with willing rape, genocide, torture, etc.? Furthermore, how can we charge God with creating beings with the sole intent of torturing these creatures in eternal fiery torment with no hope of relief and with no possibility of finding hope in Christ?

The extreme Calvinist must conclude that Dave’s points, Dave’s book and this post are all part of God’s will (so I don’t expect to hear any complaints from them). However, I would like to apply Dave’s points to his personal belief in a fiery eternal torture chamber popularly know as “hell.”

So let me adjust Dave’s arguments against extreme Calvinism and apply them to the doctrine of God’s torture chamber:

*The witness of scripture is overwhelmingly in support of the idea that men (saved and lost) go to the grave and that the lost “die,” “perish,” and are “destroyed.” The broad road leads to “destruction.” There are a few verses that speak of torment, but these are few, ambiguous and contradictory (as commonly interpreted). And even if the scriptural evidence was near 50/50 would we not still lean towards the doctrine of man’s mortality and God’s mercy?

*In defense of God’s character and love, how can we charge God with the eternal torture of all the unsaved for all eternity with no hope of finding relief? God never warns Adam of this penalty… Noah never warns the men of his day… Paul never preaches a “do you want to burn in hell?” message in his journeys or in his writings.


Preach What the Bible Preachers Preach

For 39 books of the Hebrew Canon everybody goes to the grave (sheol). The good, the bad, the ugly… no difference.

Job doesn’t hope to see his redeemer in some bodiless state, he looks for the day when he sees his redeemer “in the flesh.” Job looked for no intermediate “bodiless” state. He looked to the latter days, the day of a future resurrection.

For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God…

Likewise, Martha looked forward to seeing her brother, not in some bodiless holding tank, but on the day of resurrection. And our Lord did not correct her.

Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

That’s a good question… do you believe this?

And finally, the Apostle Paul only points to resurrection as he comforts the Thessalonian believers. There is no hint of an intermediate bodiless reunion with the dead.

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

I don’t want us to be ignorant either. Let us comfort the bereaved with the hope of resurrection, not with the mythology of “bodiless souls”.

“Immortal” is an attribute of God (1 Tim 1:17). God alone is immortal (1 Tim 6:16). Christ conquered death and the grave to bring immortality to men through the gospel (2 Tim 1:10). Only in resurrection will we “put on immortality” (1 Cor 15).


Dave Recommends Tyndale

At Dave Hunt’s site (thebereancall.org) he offers two books about William Tyndale. Perhaps we should all listen to Tyndale. Preaching “bodiless souls” reduces the resurrection (ours and Christ’s) to almost an asterisk.

“And ye, in putting them [the departed souls] in heaven, hell, and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection.... And again, if the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels be) And then what cause is there of the resurrection?” —William Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue (Parker's 1850 reprint), bk. 4, ch. 4, pp. 180, 181.

I like Dave and consider him a valuable defender of the faith. I'm just a little disappointed that he has accepted the "traditional" view of "hell" (taken from Greek mythology and Roman Catholicism) instead of the scriptural view of the grave and the mortal soul.

http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/death2.htm

Saddam, the Death Penalty & the RCC

This article is based on the original published in November 2005.

The US Catholic Bishops continue to oppose the death penalty.

I am continually amazed that no one seems to have a problem with the "high moral road" supposedly taken by the Catholic Church (RCC) against the death penalty. Whether you support or oppose the death penalty, Rome's position should amuse you.This is just another example of why the Bible is to be trusted as the sole source of unchanging truth.

Luther noted at Worms that "Popes and Councils have often contradicted each other." The (historically-speaking) very recent opposition to the death penalty by the RCC is just one more example.

Scores of Popes throughout RCC history have (infallibly) pronounced the death penalty for hundreds of thousands (most often for the charge of heresy). Today, they suddenly find a "new truth" that the death penalty (even for a murderous butcher like Saddam Hussein) is somehow not "truth" at all! Maybe the RCC has discovered a new dispensation. If so, it would only be one of the constantly changing dispensations in Roman theology... I'll stick with the eternal truths of the Word of God.

Jon Hus, William Tyndale and thousands of Waldenses, Albigenses, and Huguenots might not be as amused as I am. If Jon Hus was burned at the stake for suggesting that one could be a Christian without being a Papist, imagine want Saddam Hussein deserves! Rome's answer: a cozy cell and most likely access to a free education to better himself! Most of all, he probably should be allowed to practice Islam so he can achieve salvation [by] striving to lead a good life (Vatican Council II).

Look Out Giddy Conservatives

Many conservatives were giddy when the US bishops threatened to withhold communion from Catholic officeholders who supported abortion rights. This threat is much harsher than just a symbolic show in support of public morality. The RCC believes that its communion is a necessary installment to pay for sins. Withholding this "means of salvation" is serious business and puts Catholic officeholders in the position of choosing whether they will support what they believe what the Constitution allows or denies and their "means of salvation." Remember, that piece of bread is God in Catholic theology.

That puts all Catholic officeholders in a very precarious position.

Well, that's all well and good when they're threatening the likes of John Kerry and other liberal pro-choicers, but how excited will conservatives be if they ever make the five Catholics on the Supreme Court choose between a "means of salvation" and the constitutionality of something like the death penalty?

It's not so exciting anymore now is it?

Bill O'Reilly and the Death Penalty

Bill O'Reilly has a number of pet leftist positions that he likes to trot regularly on his program. He does this to try and convince us how "centrist" he is and to endear himself to the leftists on his program. One of these positions is his repeated opposition to the death penalty. However, in the case of Saddam (and Nuremberg I suppose) he sees a justification for the retribution (it's not a "punishment").

Well, Bill, that means that you are FOR the death penalty. I opposed to the death penalty for jay-walkers, but that does not mean that I am against the death penalty. You might be opposed to it in most instances (who isn't?), but allowing it for mass-murder means that you believe that the death penalty is a legitimate means for a society to practice retribution.

It's like the woman who is flattered and agrees to spend the night with an admirer after he asks her if she'd be willing to accept his offer of $10,000 for the liaison. After she accepts he renegotiates, "Would you spend the night with me for $10?" To this latest offer she replies in horror, "What kind of woman do you think I am?" To which her suitor responds, "We've already determined that, we're just haggling over the price."

Bill, we've determined that you support the death penalty, we're just haggling over the crimes.

Response to Yet Another Butchering of Matthew

Fruitlessly writing to a newspaper again!

To the Editor:

In her article "Where's the Peace" (Selma Times Journal - December 9, 2006)) Tammy Latham makes the same error that is made on the right and on the left concerning the words of the Lord Jesus: she selectively applies them without any regard to context. In the very Book of Matthew that she cites, the Lord states that He came “not to bring peace” ( 10:34 ). Any of us can rip words out of context if we start with a pretext. Is your next article going to be on the Bible’s call “not” to bring peace?

In her quotation of Matthew 5 she skips over a verse about which I’d like a response. Tammy, you seemed to have missed verse 42 which states “Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.” In light of your desire to obey without regard to context, please send all your assets to my home in Marion. And while you’re in Matthew, turn back to chapter 10 and try and obey those commands as well: raise the dead and refuse to preach to gentiles. Do you apply those commands to yourself as well? Good luck.

In this limited space I will not attempt to offer an interpretation of the quoted scriptures. Unfortunately, in your short article you attempted to wrest the words of the Lord from their context for your political end. That is a grave error whether done on the left or on the right. As the Lord Himself will someday lead an army into battle (“taking vengeance on those who know not God”) let us leave all things in their order, in their time, in their context and “rightly divide the Word of Truth.”

But if you are intent on taking all commands in the Bible for yourself, don’t forget about Matthew 5:42 and my request above (I could use the cash before the holidays). And when you read the commands in scripture to build an ark and to make bread from human dung, please keep those “commands” to yourself as well. As for me, context, context context.

If you want “no more casualties” in Iraq, I suggest killing or converting the people who believe that salvation comes by murder and martyrdom would be a good start. Leaving Vietnam without victory in the name of “peace” meant the murder and enslavement of millions. If you’ll note in Iraq, we’re not there trying to keep our troops from killing Iraqis, we’re trying to keep Iraqis from killing each other. If you want to argue that such a policy is futile, I’ll listen, but if you want to argue that leaving will somehow secure the region for “peace” you have 1400 years of history to argue with.

Peace is not the absence of war, it is the absence of evil. The US military is not the evil here, Tammy. We’re still in Iraq because we have refused to fight this war the way wars need to be fought because we are the most civil and peaceful nation on earth. We’re not perfect, but all things considered, we’re the good guys here.

I hope you won’t selectively apply the words of the Lord if a terrorist decides to start shooting children in one of our schools. I hope you’ll support the “good guys” who seek to bring “peace” to the school by disposing of the evil-doer. Now, that is a picture of what the earth will look like when true peace comes upon her. Peace and liberty are most often secured by war. That may not be palatable, but it is nonetheless true.

Michael Scotto
Marion, AL

Calvinists Continue to Puzzle Me

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints...

- Eph 1:17-18

This entry was inspired by this blog entry.

Let me start by saying that I realize that labels are loaded. "Calvinist" can mean many different things. I know from my adventures on the web that the label "ultradispensationalist" (the convenient label I use for myself) is maligned and misrepresented regularly in cyberspace. And to be fair, just as with ultradispensationalism, I recognize that there are different degrees of Calvinism (and I'm careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water).

So with all that understood, let me just focus on one aspect of Calvinism as represented by the blog linked above. As you read you will see that the blogger (Wylie Fulton) in his case against soft professions links to a page featuring L. R. Shelton, Sr. As I try not to attack another blogger directly, I will only make reference to his blog in relation to his link to Mr. Shelton.

To wit:

Mr Shelton states that it is in "ignorance" that anyone would lower himself to believe that salvation is dependent upon "degenerating to the level of reason and human mental ability and persuasive words of man's wisdom". That's all well and good and this is not the place for a dissection of Calvinist theology, but if one truly believes that, why are the words spoken or not spoken by men of any consequence at any time anywhere? Clearly if no amount of reason or persuasiveness is of any value then why even raise the issue?

Mr. Shelton states "I can't convict a sinner, I can't keep him under conviction, and I can't get him to Christ." Well if a sound, bible-taught teacher such as Mr. Shelton is totally incapable of being of any good in the conversion of a sinner, how could an unsound, biblically-ignorant man be of any detriment? The argument works both ways.

He continues "The worst enemy to the Gospel that we face today is the unsaved religionist, usually a preacher who doesn't know what to do with an awakened sinner." So a man has the ability to thwart the work of the Holy Spirit? That is your argument? A sound believer can do nothing to bring anyone to Christ, but a lost religionist has the ability to thwart the will of God and the work of the Holy Spirit and prevent a man from coming to Christ?

I must pause and quote that with which I agree: "The most deadly enemy of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ today (let me repeat it!) is an unsaved religionist who knows nothing about Holy Spirit conviction." I am not contending against this thought here. I am not questioning whether or not men are being misled with the promise of making a decision for Christ versus understanding the gospel.

My confusion is why certain Calvinists get so upset about false gospels.

In my theology it is understandable why I am concerned about false professions and religionists leading the blind into the ditch. But for the life of me I can't understand why someone who believes that no man has any bearing on salvation (even as the one who is the object of that salvation) would be concerned at all.

Great preacher, Bible-believer, Staunch Calvinist: such a man can do nothing to convict anyone of sin, keep anyone under conviction or lead anyone to Christ. Despite his failings (we all admit that all men have shortcomings don't we?) God will sovereignly do a work in the sinner's life. OK, fair enough. If you want to believe that, I can accept that to a degree. However, if you believe that, how on earth can you also believe that a false teacher is capable of thwarting the sovereign will of God?

Mr. Shelton adds, "I do not confine God to any one way of acting in saving a lost soul." I'm trying to agree with him. I am also trying to see how he can hold such contradictory positions on the sovereignty of God. In his theology then, can God use the Catholic Church? The Mormon Church? If not, why not? Is God not sovereign? Is His will thwarted by the constructs of men? Even more pointedly can it be thwarted by the constructs of men?

Mr. Shelton continues, "Now, no preacher in the world can convince a sinner that he is a sinner and needs a Saviour." Then why do you have a web site? OK, I'm just being picky here to make a point. I believe that salvation is of faith and faith comes by hearing the Word of God. That Word brings conviction by the Holy Spirit to whomsoever will hear it and heed it. But how shall they hear without a preacher (Rom 10:14)? No, we can't use human reason to convince a sinner, but we can preach the Word and as Philip did; we can give sense to a passage.

"Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?" - Acts 8

Nehemiah was also used by God to explain the Word of God:

"So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." - Neh 8

The Levites explained the meaning of the Law to the people to help them understand:

"Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place." - Neh 8

My problem is not with the necessity of conviction of sin (in my theology that equates with truly "understanding" the gospel), rather it is with the anger certain Calvinists have with how people preach. Honestly, if the preacher is of no consequence then what does it matter? If the preacher is of some consequence then your theology goes out the window.

Mr Shelton warns, "A true sight of your actual transgressions will make you weep over your condition, and mourn and bewail your sins in the sight of a holy God. If this has never taken place, you cannot say that you are saved. " What is the point of his warning? If he is of no consequence and he can't lead anyone to Christ, then of what need or effect is his warning? The warning he gives is not the Word of God, it is merely Mr. Shelton's human reasoning and persuasion is it not? If God wants to use his web page He can, but there is no need for it. God is going to do what He is going to do regardless of Mr. Shelton's page. So why all the angst?

This is the dilemma the angry Calvinist faces. If we're all powerless to do either good or evil, if our preaching can neither lead or hinder... there is absolutely no need for anger, warning or for any teaching at all!

The rest of the page is along this line, "Christ is hidden in the bosom of the Father, and you can never find Him until the Holy Spirit brings you to Him." But even so, Mr. Shelton's going to do his darndest to... ummm... I'm not sure what he's trying to do but let's hope he's not "degenerating to the level of reason and human mental ability and persuasive words of man's wisdom".

If I didn't know better, these words from the "wisdom" of Mr. Shelton sound an awful lot like he believes that he can lead someone to Christ... but maybe it's just me:

"You say, 'Brother Shelton, oh tell me, what can I do in the condition I'm in! I can't bow my will to His.' Your only hope is to plead with Him to break that will anyway, anyhow, and regardless of the cost, because if He doesn't, the Holy Spirit convinces you that as a child of Satan you are under the judgment with Satan, and that he is already judged. It is now or never, and that is where many sinners fall under the judgment of God, where God becomes silent to them. But, praise the Lord, He is able to deliver any poor captive sinner from Satan's clutches of unbelief and self-will, and put him in his right mind, sitting at the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ, learning of Him."

I'll finish by just noting that Mr. Shelton, while referencing "hell" and burning therein, at least doesn't directly resort to trying to scare people into understanding the gospel. I wish the Calvinists who revere the Reformers would read Tyndale and Luther sometime... the doctrine of an "immortal soul" is a pagan creation of Rome. Unfortunately without the threat of fiery torture without end, some of these preachers have no gospel (which they have no ability to use anyway, right?). They degrade the resurrection of the redeemed by accepting the Greek myth of a "bodiless, eternal soul."

Here's what I believe are the greatest hindrances to God's work:

- Preachers trying to scare people into understanding
- Preachers not understanding the inheritance of the saints in this hour
- Preachers not relying on the Word of God to bring men to understanding
- Preachers not understanding the age of grace
- Preachers not understanding what was accomplished by Christ Jesus (the reversal of death)
- Preachers not understanding the hope of our calling
- Preachers awash in Greek mythology and resorting to unbiblical tactics to obtain professions.

Paul reasoned with men out of the scriptures and it was incumbent on those men to compare Paul's words against the scriptures. No, it is not the cleverness or eloquence of teachers that bring men to Christ, rather it is the preaching of the goodness of God (Rom 2) taught from the scriptures by faithful men.

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures."

The Holy Spirit does the convicting, but we are all called upon to persuade men by preaching the Word and giving the sense of the scriptures. How shall they hear without a preacher? How can they understand unless one explain it to them? We are sent to preach it and to explain it. Let God give the understanding and the conviction. Never lose sight of your place in that equation.

Mr. Shelton, despite his declarations of uselessness, is trying to frighten people into understanding. I declare that God can use us and far from trying to frighten people (a tactic not used by the apostle Paul), we should be preaching the Word, giving a sense, and explaining God's grace in this day of grace. In short, we should reason with men from the scriptures concerning the goodness of God... just as Paul and Philip and Nehemiah did.

Pilgrims Boycott Wal-Mart Over Christmas

Pilgrims Upset over "the War on Christmas"... Not Enough Christians Fighting it!

Now that Wal-Mart has caved in to the threats of a boycott over its decision to use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" Evangelicals can turn their attention to the Separatists (too loaded a term), er, "Pilgrims" at this Thanksgiving time. Ah, yes, those perky Christians who came to America to set up Focus on the Family, ally themselves with the Catholic Church and secure the place of Christmas in the hearts of their countrymen! Wait a second...

It's always difficult to know exactly how one person or group might act in another age, but if you’ll indulge me (pun intended) let me draw from the Plymouth colony’s own William Bradford’s writings and the ideals of the other Separatists in light of the hour in which we live.

This is obviously just a blog entry, but I trust that the references to the beliefs of the Separatists are accurate without bibliography (such documentation is readily available).

The Catholic Church has long taught infallibly (unfortunately not a pun) that it wields the sword as a spiritual power and that its sword is superior to the temporal sword of the state. This is so abundantly obvious in catholic theology that Pius IX (the great hater of the United States) declared it a grave error to even consider that Catholicism shouldn’t be the state religion “to the exclusion of all other forms of worship”. This concept was anathema (pun again intended) to the Separatists. William Bradford abhorred the papal system and its leftovers as seen in the Church of England (i.e. RC Lite).

I cannot do justice to Bradford’s antipathy towards the sacramentalist churches here. Suffice it to say that he would be mortified that Focus on the Family would be promoting “the real story of the Pilgrims” (FOTF Weekend Magazine) while aligning themselves with the “gross darkness” (Bradford’s words) of that which he believed “Satan hath raised” (ibid) to oppose “liberty” (ibid) and "true Christians" (ibid) and “the light of the gospel” (ibid).

Mr. Bradford would also be horrified at the “Christmas wars” and boycotts being waged in the name of Christianity by groups like the American Family Association. The Separatists had a simple view of the “holy day”; it was simply not scriptural. Now this isn’t a paper on the doctrines of Christmas, but I believe it is fairly safe to say that the Pilgrims would be boycotting the boycotters over the Wal-Mart “Christmas” flap. One of the reasons they separated from the Church of England was because the Church overtly celebrated Christmas! For more thoughts on this issue see my previous entry on the Wal-Mart “controversy”.

I am not arguing that the Pilgrims were 100% correct in everything they said or did (I’m sure they’d have problems with elements of my theology), but at least let us do them the honor of recognizing what they believed.

It irks me when Liberals try to claim the legacy of Jefferson as their own. In a more comical and tragic way, I find it irksome when organizations like Focus on the Family try and do the same with the legacy of Plymouth Colony.

Let’s give thanks for the things they gave thanks for… including liberty of conscience, freedom from "unprofitable canons and decrees" and freedom from a state-imposed religion.

John Adams understood the danger posed by “canon law” and in the spirit of the Pilgrims warned us against such a system in no uncertain terms. Referring to the system of “canon law” as one of “the greatest systems of tyranny” in the Christian age, he remarked “all the epithets I have here given to the Romish policy are just”.

They were just, Mr. Adams, but just like the ideals of the Pilgrims, they have long been forgotten. The system that claims no contradictions and a “continuity of faith” has been able to obscure its doctrines and history among its own “by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance” and among its enemies by “secret and subtle means”.
We ignore the warnings of these men at our own peril.

Now that Wal-Mart has caved in to the threats of a boycott over its decision to use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" Evangelicals can turn their attention to ignoring other lessons from the Separatists, er, Pilgrims.

Very Scary Exegesis to Scare Unbelievers Into Faith

I recently attended a “revival” meeting. Initially I wanted to write about the quality of a sermon from a man who has 31 years of expository preaching and a doctoral degree. In short, he presented a message that frankly I could have given when I had been saved for 5 seconds; with the same terrible exegesis I would have offered as well. It is that exegesis, however, that I want to address here.

[They] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

As part of his “scare you into heaven” and/or “scare Christians into scaring other people into heaven” message the speaker invoked the warning about sinners (i.e. non-Christians) being cast into “outer darkness”. A simple look, however, will prove the grave error of invoking this passage to scare unbelievers into the “church”.

The most obvious question we must ask about this verse is exactly to whom was this warning addressed? Without filling in the “they” in the above quotation of Matthew 8, most Christians would say that this obviously refers to non-Christians in our day. Similarly, if I asked (independent of the context here) your average seminary graduate with a doctoral degree in theology “who are the children of the kingdom?” the answer would almost always come back “the church”. Houston, we have a problem. Let’s look at the verse in total:

But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I’ve noticed that when Evangelists quote this verse to scare folks into decisions they conveniently leave out the “children of the kingdom” part.

Obviously the children of the kingdom can’t possibly be the church of this hour. Another key to understanding this verse is found in the word “but”; this group is juxtaposed against another group. Checking the context will help us understand the warning in this passage.

When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

In this passage we see that those who are NOT “the children of the kingdom” are gentiles. God clearly made distinctions among people in terms of hopes, promises and covenants (never in regard to salvation). The “kingdom” was promised to Israel alone. Our Lord’s warning here is to ISRAEL.

There will be a time in a future kingdom when members of the nation of Israel shall be “cast out” of that kingdom (not lost, but cast out) and when gentiles shall sit down in that kingdom by faith. Such a threat cannot be ripped from its context and applied to non-believers in this hour.

The verse also cannot be referring to some sort of “fiery eternal torment”. Such a thing has to be imposed on the passage as there is not contextual reason for doing so. If we are to “rightly divide the word of truth” we can hardly stick the Greek idea of place of fire on a verse that has absolutely nothing to do with such a concept.

There are four references to “weeping and gnashing of teeth” in Matthew (Chapters 8, 22, 24, 25) and none have any hint of fiery torment. What all four have in common is that are connected with a future event tied to the return of the King to rule over Israel.

Ripping the phrase from that context and trying to apply to Uncle Bill who died last week is simply bad exegesis. It’s not only bad, it does great violence to the scripture. I guess you need four years in a seminary and 31 years in a pulpit to give you the right to ignore abundantly clear contextual evidence of your error.

Sam's Club Refuses to Take Stance on Justification!

Target Silent on a Literal Interpretation of Genesis!

So Sam's Club/Wal-Mart has decided not to use the word "Christmas" again this year. They have also entered into a partnership of sorts with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. All of this has the American Family Association quite upset.

The affiliation with the gay group is puzzling, but a national retailer staying above the fray in the "Christmas-Holiday" debate doesn't strike me as odd (or even mildly offensive).

I am a conservative Evangelical Christian who dates the birth of Christ at about September 29 (conception on December 25). I have no problem with individual Christians "celebrating" either the birth or the incarnation of our Lord. Be that as it may, why should I care if Wal-Mart uses "Christmas" or not? Should retailers present us with doctrinal statements?

I bet Wal-Mart refuses to take a stand against the Council of Trent as well. Then again, most Christians I know won't come out against Trent so why does it matter what Wal-Mart does with a made-up "Holy Day" anyway?

We bemoan the commercialization of the holiday then bellyache when a commercial entity won't further commercialize it.

I didn't see a doctrinal statement on the official AFA site (afa.net), but I do listen to my local AFA affiliated radio station (AFR Radio). The network is decidedly Evangelical in its content. AFA and AFR (Focus on the Family, etc.) like so many ministries today feel compelled to go to the mat and spend their time, energy and money fighting silly things like a secular BUSINESS like Sam's Club using the rather inoffensive word "holiday".

I don't expect Sam's Club to take a stance on the issues truly important to Christianity (justification, sanctification, etc.) so why should I expect them to recognize a holiday that is relatively insignificant (of course the incarnation is significant, but the "holiday season" itself is of no eternal consequence to the faith of Evangelicals)?

I don't expect Shoe Show to take a stand on the efficacy of the work of Christ on Calvary. Nor do I need McDonalds to finally come down on the issue of the canonicity of the Book of Tobit. Who is waiting for JC Penny to take a position on the hot-button issues of baptismal regeneration and predestination? What next, Catholics demanding Target recognize the Feast of the Assumption?

The things that rile Christians these days... sheez! Declare the evangelical gospel "anathema" and it's Kum Bah Yah time. Declare an anathema for denying indulgences (remember those?) and we'll look the other way (Vat II). But use "holiday" instead of "Christmas" and suddenly the faith is threatened.

Silly. Absolutely silly. And a colossal waste of time and money.

Might I suggest we send Chuck Colson to Sam's Club to sign a statement pretending that we won't notice their exclusion of the word "Christmas" if they'll ignore us when we get in the wrong checkout line.