Extreme Musings

Imitators, Robbers & Thieves... Satan's Home Is in the Pulpit

2011-04-12T06:55:00.000-07:00

Playboy isn't pretending to "imitate" Christianity... but lots of other things are.

We were singing a song during worship yesterday (the name of the tune escapes me - excuse me for not being up on all the latest praise songs, I'm an old guy)... and a few of the lyrics struck me (imitators, robbers, thieves, wolves). We often talk about and sing about "wolves in sheep's clothing" and thieves trying to steal our rewards, etc. But of what sort of "imitators" and "thieves" does the scripture warn us? We sang it, but did we mean it?

The scripture warns us about infidelity and other sins of the flesh, but those are things that come from within us. Too often we attribute the temptations of the world (money, success, glory) and the flesh (lust, greed, hate) to the devil. And whereas he can use those things to his end, his end is deception, specifically "religious" deception.

Satan, we are told, is a liar... and a very good one. Very few people will believe that heroin is the path to happiness, contentment and peace with God, but many will fall for "righteous" teaching, utopian hopes, solemn rituals and "positive" action. Many Christians will fall for these things if "Christ" is attached to them. Let's take a short trip through the scripture and examine some of the flashing red lights we are given.

The following are a few of the "false" religious things about which we are warned:

False Prophets - Those claiming to speak for God have plagued Israel throughout most of her history. The examples are legion, but let me use one my favorite accounts: the story of the sarcastic prophet Micaiah. First let's look at what the 400 prophets claiming to speak for God told King Jehoshaphat.

Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king.

Very positive! Very encouraging! "The LORD shall deliver it!" very God-centered! But, unfortunately a lot of religious and sanctimonious garbage. Now onto the words of my favorite prophet (he gives me Bible justification for my sarcasm!).

There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.

Let me just pause here and note that being a realist, being Biblical and being less than positive is not going to make anyone terribly popular. In fact, for his dedication to the actual words of God, Micaiah was put in a prison and only given bread and water. But I digress...

And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, what the LORD saith unto me, that will I speak. So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king. And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the LORD? And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?

Catch his sarcasm? He mocked the false prophets by restating their false prophecy before giving the King the true word from the LORD. In the end, it was 400 false prophets who were very popular and one sarcastic but faithful prophet who was stuck in a prison for his faithfulness.

Micaiah was warned, "The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, “Look, the other prophets without exception are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably.” But when it comes to speaking the truth, being positive and agreeable aren't always the way of God... and they'll often get you ostracized and cast out.

False Christs - False messiahs were also a plague of Israel. The number of men declared (even self-declared) to be the prophesied messiah clouded the truth that surrounded the true messiah when he presented himself to Israel. The Lord warns Israel that before his return to establish his Kingdom in Israel, there will be many false messiahs (Christs).

At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Note this is future. It is connected with his return to Israel and the end of the age. This warning is part of an answer to a specific question.

what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?

For those keeping score at home, this context is essential to understanding Matthew 24-25. But as with all scripture, there is a principle to be understood. In our day we have people trying to take the office of prophet or messiah, they're just not terribly successful (as they will be in an age to come). But there are folks in our age about whom we are warned, to whom many listen, and about whom the church very rarely raises an objection (lest we be seen as "negative" or "unloving").

False Apostles - The apostle Paul gives us the greatest insight into how Satan works. In short, he's in the religion and righteousness business. Let the flesh plague man in regard to immorality and gluttony; let the world entice us with it's systems and distractions; Satan wants to lie to us through religion.

I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.

Note, those who lead people astray (even believers) are not masquerading as pimps, or as drug dealers. They are disguised as the select and called of Christ. When you want to deceive sheep, you don't send someone dressed as a fireman or someone who uses the language of a butcher... you send someone who looks and sounds like a shepherd and you dress others as the sheep themselves. You stick them in pulpits and you hang degrees on their walls.

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness.

Note that while Satan presents himself as an Angel of Light (he doesn't care how many poor people you feed, so long as it distracts you and them from a pursuit of truth), his ministers are "the servants of righteousness." Excuse me while I plug my own stuff here, but this is what inspired the words "He'll say you can do it, he'll tell you to try, Satan stands in the pulpit, he sells you the lie" in my song "No Forgiveness".

Paul assumes this shouldn't surprise us, but we've fallen so far from the watchtower, I hardly think anyone is looking for these false apostles any longer.

One of the last things I did as a Religious Education Teacher in my former faith was to attend a workshop for people in my position. As part of an "evangelistic" push for the new millennium, we were instructed on how to use words like "grace" and "faith" and "born again" to reach out to our Evangelical family and friends (and maintain a hold on those within who were influenced by the growing Evangelical movement). We didn't think of it this way, but we were at a workshop teaching us how to deceive those outside our circle and keep those within. We presented ourselves as religious "servants of righteousness" while we were "deceitful workers."

We sing about these wolves and imitators and false shepherds in our music, but do we take it seriously?

There is a certain name tossed out with glory and reverence from Evangelical pulpits across the globe who, I believe, was one of the worst deceivers and false teachers of our generation. But I no longer even try to talk about what this person did and taught, lest I be labeled a "bigot" and a "basher." This person lived a seemingly "righteous" life. This person had Christ on the lips all the time. This person seemingly sacrificed for the sick and poor... all the while preaching "another Jesus" and "another gospel" while enjoying the best the world had to offer.

Like Eve, we are easily deceived by promises of goodness and godliness.

But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

What do we think an "imitator" is supposed to look like? Imitators outwardly look like light, but the bring only darkness, death and destruction.

False Teachers - All the above had direct application to a nation awaiting its messiah and the return of its messiah to establish his kingdom. All those have within principles applicable in our age. But Paul left us a dire warning in his last words directed to us in Second Timothy.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

There is nothing that sends up warning flags for me more than a suddenly popular teacher.

Paul also notes in his last epistle, how we are to handle the truth he has delivered for this church.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

We are to look for faithful men. But too often we fall for the flavor of the month. Since I've been a Christian, I have seen the church go through a series of "the next great thing" that will really evangelize the world! In every case, each has either come to naught or deceived many or both (Left Behind, Hero, Purpose Driven Church, Prayer of Jabez, Chicken Soup books, Passion of the Christ TPOTC, Your Best Life Now, The Shack, ECT, and endless other distractions from the scripture... and all these became franchises that grew until the cash cows dried up... I was waiting for "The Purpose Driven Sandwich", "The Prayer of Jabez for Temp Workers" and "The Passion of the Christ Study Guide for Orthodontists"... and if the money would have continued to roll in, I'm sure I would have seen them all!).

I'm always ready for the next "big thing" that is going to excite Christendom and lead us all to don our "Swindle Me!" t-shirts as we spend another gazillion dollars on another trendy franchise. Some guy on TBN promised me that God told him that worship services would break out in theaters and that hundreds of thousands would make professions in the theaters during TPOTC. But even Barna (who counts anyone who drives by a church as an Evangelical Christian), concluded that after we handed gospel-denier Mel Gibson 3/4 billion dollars, there was nothing to show for it in the way of true conversions.

Among the most startling outcomes drawn from the research is the apparent absence of a direct evangelistic impact by the movie. Despite marketing campaigns labeling the movie the "greatest evangelistic tool" of our era, less than one-tenth of one percent of those who saw the film stated that they made a profession of faith or accepted Jesus Christ as their savior in reaction to the film’s content. [And those are only "professions."]

Equally surprising was the lack of impact on people’s determination to engage in evangelism. Less than one-half of one percent of the audience said they were motivated to be more active in sharing their faith in Christ with others as a result of having seen the movie.

George Barna, the director of the research, commented that many people would probably be surprised that there was not a more lasting and intense impact from the movie. "Immediate reaction to the movie seemed to be quite intense," he noted, "but people’s memories are short and are easily redirected in a media-saturated, fast-paced culture like ours.

Note to Mr. Barna... I was not surprised. Mel gave us a nice, shiny, bright "imitation", but that's about it.

It's not that everything related to these things is necessarily bad... but then again, rat poison is 99% nutritious.

Remember... Satan comes as an Angel of Light and his ministers as the ministers of righteousness. You're more likely to find him in a pulpit than in brothel.

Believe and Be Rescued! But From What?

2011-02-08T19:06:00.000-08:00

Rescue Me!

I'm probably exposing myself as a lousy listener, but it was either used in one of the worship songs or it was somewhere in Todd's message (the day's preacher) or both (I think it was used in one the scripture passages he referenced)... the word "Rescue" struck me Sunday. I've studied the word before and I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't have the place it should in Christianity.

We prefer the word "saved" (and salvation). Now, that's a perfectly good translation of the thought, but it has somehow lost some of its original depth along with some of its practical reality. The theological use of the word (which is perfectly appropriate) has, IMHO, subdued the concept.

As with any word used in scripture, context is of the utmost importance. When we limit our thinking concerning the word "saved" (or salvation) without regard to its full meaning and its contextual use, we can sometimes be confused (and some may be led astray). This is not an exhaustive study on either of those words or all that goes into salvation, but I do want to look more closely at the biblical concept of "salvation."

Let's just look at a few popular verses using of the word "saved" (salvation).

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. (Rom 10:10)

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God... (Eph 2:8)

So I have nothing against the translated verses or the word "saved."

OK, so what's my point?

We see two words used here (sozo and soterio) which have similar connotations. Strong describes "sozo" (in part) "to rescue from danger or destruction" and soterio "deliverance, preservation, safety". He goes on to add to each a sort of theological understanding of the word. For "soterio" A. W. Pink's thoughts are added: "Fourfold salvation: saved from the penalty, power, presence and most importantly the pleasure of sin."

Other words used in describing or translating these words: deliverance, restore, make well, rescue, preserve from danger or destruction, restore to health. The consistent thought is a rescuing from a current condition and a determined end. You might say, "well, we knew that didn't we?" And I would answer, "Kinda."

For I know that this will turn out for my (soterio) deliverance (KJV: salvation) through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Some have tried to use this verse from Paul in Philippians 1 to preach that prayers for others can lead to their spiritual "salvation", but the idea here, in context, is clearly Paul's release from a temporal prison. We can apply this thinking to spiritual "salvation" (or deliverance, rescue). When we see "salvation" as a rescue, we won't get bogged down in theological traps, the context will do our interpreting for us.

Many would agree with the lofty words of Pink as quoted above in regard to what "salvation" entails, but I think that description is secondary (an not always applicable). What we have been delivered and rescued from is death. Death is our enemy and destruction is our end (the result of sin). The Lord Jesus was victorious over death. Death was introduced by Adam and it shall be finally defeated by the last Adam (Christ).

The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Cor 15)

Christ has rescued us from death and the grave. Paul's great chapter on the victory of Christ over death (1 Cor 15) ends this way:

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then [AND ONLY THEN] the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death [Hades - the abode of the dead, the grave], is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

This is the great victory found in our resurrection.

So we have been "rescued" from the grave. We have been "rescued" from death. We have been "rescued" from our decay in this flesh. We have been "rescued" from the wages of sin, which is death. All these things can be noted in the past tense even though we will not see the victory until "then" (then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”). Our rescue is spoken of in the past because it is a sure thing in the future.

Our rescue is a present possession that shall be experienced in the future. Until then, we wallow around in these bodies of death, groaning for our redemption (our rescue) and our new house (our new resurrection body).

Even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked.

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Can Skeptics be Atheists? - MyFox8 Community Blog post

2010-10-06T11:58:00.000-07:00

Can Skeptics be Atheists? - My DigTriad Community Blog post

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

2009-06-24T10:02:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-02-27T07:31:00.000-08:00

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

2008-04-05T09:55:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-05-17T18:24:00.000-07:00

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

2007-01-03T12:48:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-09T21:41:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-27T14:41:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-20T09:41:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-11T13:30:00.000-08:00

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!

2006-08-28T08:23:00.000-07:00

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.

I Finally Saw It... Well Kinda...

2006-08-27T08:36:00.000-07:00

"Weep not for me, weep for yourselves and for your children."
- Luke 23:28

I was flipping through my new cable channels last night and happened across The Passion of the Christ on Showtime (we get it free at the moment with the new cable). Well, I watched a good 23 minutes straight of this "SO ACCURATE, IT'S PRACTICALLY WRITTEN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF" movie and apart from the main characters and the general plot, I barely recognized what was going on.

Of the first four scenes I watched, three were fanciful and aren't even remotely biblical. The other was fictitious, but based on a true story.

I poked my head in a few more times and watched maybe 10 or 15 minutes more here or there. The last time I looked in I caught the highly accurate and biblical account of a raven tearing out the eyes of the "bad thief" as the "good thief" informs the [bystander] priest to "listen" as Jesus prayed for him (exactly as the Bible recounts).

Satan seems to have given himself a starring role in this story too. He seemed to be omnipresent (if you catch my drift). I'm glad the cinematography was so good (and it was) or else I would have believed that I was watching the Aramaic version of [the 70s Rock Opera] Jesus Christ Superstar. The storyline in The Passion was much closer to Superstar than to the scriptures.

I also noticed that some shots of James Caviezel (who played Jesus) looked just like some of the artwork I saw when I visited the Vatican years ago. Funny that.

It was nice to see the often overlooked biblical account of Pilate's wife tending to Mary's sorrow and the demonic children chasing Judas to his death... perhaps in TPOTC Part II the apostles will get together and build a waterslide. I can't seem to find that in my Bible either, but all that stuff must be near the back somewhere.

This movie (at least the 30 or so minutes that I saw) was so apocryphal that I am sickened that usually sound Bible teachers like Greg Laurie could call it an "accurate portrayal". I am sure that the rest of the movie that I didn't see is likely as bad because I've read so many accounts of other unbiblical content from ministries trying to convince me it's so biblical.

I figured out what they like about the film and why they seem to have ignored the rather loose interpretation of the scripture... it is so bloody that it has an "emotional" appeal. Since the church these days likes to substitute "emotional appeals" above the simplicity of "preaching the word" I am hardly surprised.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the "hundreds of thousands of conversions" that I was promised by TBN that would happen in the theaters. I guess TBN is still processing all those names. Of course all those promised "church services breaking out in the theaters" must have made the counting difficult.

"Weep for youselves."

The Doctrine of Denominational Unity

2006-06-21T13:52:00.000-07:00

The Doctrine of Denominational Unity

“Adrian Rogers was a gracious man who worked for unity in the body of Christ. He believed with all his heart that inerrancy was a hill to die on. But he still sought unity in the body of Christ”
-Joyce Rogers (widow of Adrian Rogers)

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) recently concluded its national convention in North Carolina. A major point of contention in the SBC has been for many years now the argument over the doctrine of bible inerrancy. How this core issue of the faith even rises to the level of a discussion is beyond my ability to understand.

How could an issue deemed worthy to die for be relegated to a position not worth separating over? No, you don’t have to be cruel. No, you don’t have to be mean. But you do have to draw a line. “I’d die for it… I just won’t separate over it” is a silly place to be.

What other causes are worth dying for but are not worth being inconvenienced for? Silly.

Great Christians in history and the “great cloud of witnesses” in the scriptures are not measured by their willingness to compromise, but by their willingness to suffer for the truth.

Boy, that Elijah was sooooo mean-spirited! And don’t get me started on Peter and Paul. Calling men “dogs” and telling false teachers to leave believers alone! These guys need a Rick Warren seminar on group hugs and on “How to Pretend Doctrine Is Important While Crying and Not Do Anything About It.”

One of the church’s favorite pastimes is crying crocodile tears because of the ever-present fear that someone might call us “mean-spirited.” A more insidious practice is the “getting angry at the church for not loving enough” shtick. Without this theme CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) would have very little to write about.

You’ve seen it, some musician or pastor gets angry at “the church” for not loving enough, he/she yells at a nameless “church,” the listeners applaud uncontrollably and then there’s a lot of self-flagellation. You can even deny the faith like Rich Mullins did, but no matter, it's the anger at the church that counts. Of course, very little is accomplished for the Lord, but a lot of people feel better because they feel worse and the delusion that the world will somehow like us better is strengthened (see: fantasy).

I can picture the fantasy, I get to speak at a national conference somewhere and I build up to a screeching “We’re just a bunch of unloving bastards! Is that what Jesus would want us to be?” Then I follow up with a weepy plea for “unity” so “we can be the loving hands of Jesus.” My star would rise and the offers to speak would pour in. But just sticking up for Bible inerrancy (no matter how saccharine sweet one tries to be) will only get you invitations to small conferences and even smaller churches until the invitations dry up.

Why? Because beating up on the church sounds “brave,” but it’s really only a coward’s guarantee of adulation. Another reason is more symptomatic of the modern church: the doctrine of denominational unity is more important than core doctrines like THE BIBLE. Of course, they’d never say that, but to turn the tables a little bit on them… their actions are drowning out their “statement of faith” pamphlets.

“[W]e’ve got to have a supernatural healing in the SBC, a healing of relationships.”
-Ed Young (former President of the SBC)

What is the source of conflict in these relationships, Ed? If someone keeps coming to my house and telling my kids the Bible is full of allegory and error, there’s going to be a severed relationship. Sure, I can do it amicably. I can be nice about it. But I’ll never apologize for limiting the relationship (no matter how many tears are shed at a convention of self-flagellists).

“I’m an inerrantist. I believe in the Word of God. I’m just not mad about it.”
– Frank Page (newly elected President of the SBC)

Why get upset over a little question such as “hath God said”? There are so many other things to get angry about like “why don’t we love enough!!”

If you can call Genesis 1:1 into question, you can do the same with John 1:1… and John 5:24… and Rom 6:23… and Eph 2:8-9… and Titus 3:5… and 1 Timothy 2:12… oh wait, they do question that last one.

Well, Frank, I’m mad about it (although I prefer the word “angry,” I’m not as well-versed in the English language as you ThDs). In fact, I’m seething. Might I quote another mean-spirited person for a second? Somebody somewhere said “You make the Word of God of none effect by your tradition,” then this man had the nerve to call those who didn’t honor the Bible “snakes” and a “viper’s brood.”

Whoever that guy was, he needs to understand that the SBC has a big budget. It has offices and staff. If some of those snakes leave how are we going to pay the bills?

“It is written… or is it?” isn’t a very effective strategy against the wiles of the devil.

“Hath God said?” The answer is “yes.” I can tell you this, if you have people in your church who are immovably entrenched in either the “maybe” or the “no” camps, no amount of love is going to get them to tell Eve she was wrong in her assessment of the Word of God.

One last note: the requisite “people don’t come to Christ because we don’t love enough” accusation was trotted out on schedule at the convention. Again, I agree that we must “speak the truth in love.” The problem is that while many like the “in love” part, precious few care for the “speak the truth” part because even fewer believe that “the truth” is worth separating over.

“In love” will never get you the persecution that “the truth” will. This is why a gospel-denier like Mother Teresa is glorified in every corner of an unbelieving globe and from Evangelical pulpits across America while gospel preachers like Oliver B. Greene are footnotes. Did Oliver Greene preach in love? Sure. He just made the mistake of being “dogmatic” when it came to silly little doctrines like grace, faith, salvation, the inerrancy of scripture, the finished work of Christ and other things that we need supernatural help to “heal” over.

Here’s a shocking new theory: faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

How about this: people don’t come to Christ because they don’t see themselves as totally incapable of pleasing a thrice holy God or because they think God is somehow appeased by their “religion” or they just don’t care to consider anything that would require them to face rejection.

Well, I guess if you join the self-flagellists you might not face rejection… well, you might not face rejection this day… however, I’m none too sure about a rejection you may face on another far more important day in the future by a far less fickle judge.

=

PS: I would like to commend Don Wilton’s call to stand up for the truth of the Bible at the convention. He stated there “The SBC is no longer built on absolute truth. It is built on personal preference and we’re in trouble.” You all know the name of Rick Warren, but how many know the name of Don Wilton? Of course, Don will never be featured in Ladies’ Home Journal or appear on Oprah; but somehow I don’t think he cares.

Hitler Was Against Gay Marriage! Yeah!!

2006-04-08T15:36:00.000-07:00

"And they shall deceive many."

The church of today has an odd blind spot dedicated and devoted and separated unto to the Catholic Church. If I were to teach certain doctrines parallel to those taught by Rome apart from the mantle of “The Catholic Church” I would be labeled a nut, a cultist, a heretic, an Apostate and worse.

However, when Rome states her abhorrent anti-gospel, anti-Evangelical doctrines, Evangelicals line up to laud her and scream “tolerance,” “unity” and even “hooray!”

Let’s say that I claimed to be Paul’s infallible successor and I dared preach that if you missed a Sunday service at MY church, you’d lose your salvation and burn in torment forever… or if I dared preach that forgiveness of sins came ONLY through MY church and by a grant of forgiveness from one of MY ministers (after completing the works we assigned)… or if I dared teach that I controlled a bank of good work merits from which I could dispense payments for sins on your behalf (as I saw fit)?

If dared teach any of these, I’d be rightly run out of Evangelical churches and labeled a cultist.

Would Jim Dobson hail me as the greatest Christian leader in the world if I taught all these and happened to be pro-Life? I don’t think so.

Rome not only teaches these doctrines, she teaches hundreds of similar and worse doctrines!

Catholicism is the ONLY world religion to SPECIFICALLY condemn the Evangelical gospel. She condemns it not only once but scores of times, by scores of Popes over centuries. Once should be enough for us to say “sayonara!”

No other organization, religious or political, has specifically attacked the gospel of grace with anywhere near the vehemence of Rome. Her rejection of that gospel is firmly entrenched in both her current catechism and in the supposed “liberating” documents of the Second Vatican Council (which carries its own anathema for denying indulgences…. Hmmm, “indulgences” where have we heard that before?).

Here is a church that has been anti-Israel (not recognizing Israel until the early 1990s – over a decade after Egypt had!), pro-PLO, pro-Open Borders, anti-freedom of the press, anti-freedom of conscience (equating it with madness), anti-death penalty (that's a laugh), pro Evolution, pro “Living Wage” and has touted the benefits of the Kyoto (Global Warming)Treaty. Why is it, then, that conservative columnists, radio hosts and pundits line up to praise Rome? I know San Franciscans that aren't as anti-American.

What is it going to take?

The current Pope comes out and says that faith is not necessary for salvation! If you care about your community you can be saved?… and the silence is deafening from Evangelicals. That’s not a “minor doctrinal difference” it is a MAJOR misunderstanding of truth.

So, according to Rome, if you’re a Catholic and you miss Mass (without an excused absence) or you leave the Catholic Church then die without priestly absolution and performing penance YOU WILL BE TORTURED BY FIRE FOR ETERNITY. But if you’re not a Catholic and you never quite understand Catholicism, yet you care about your community, the angels will sing at your triumphant salvation?

Can I teach this stuff and get into the Focus on the Family Hall of Fame? I’m against Gay Marriage, Jim!

These examples of Rome’s apostate doctrines just barely scratch the surface of the confusing and complex world of Catholicism. However, from either end (the threats of damnation to devout Catholics or the promises of eternal life to Hindus, Muslims and community activists) Rome’s doctrines are abhorrent and contradictory to our gospel.

Just to list the damnations of our gospel by Rome would take too much bandwidth, but all I should have to do is to list one. But, alas, I won’t even quote one. Why? Because the Dobsons and the Colsons of the world have political issues to win and if they have to lie down in bed with the greatest tormenter and persecutor of the gospel in history, so be it.

The blinders are on and securely in place.

“Let the Protestants of England never forget William Tyndale. His lifework was to bring the Bible within reach even of the humblest peasant. And for no other offence than this, the Church hounded him to his death, never resting till it strangle him at the stake and flung his body to the flames.” -Sir Robert Anderson (The Silence of God)

Sorry, Sir Robert, we admire Tyndale on the surface, but his sacrifice for the truth has long been forgotten. But after all, the Pope thinks that Hollywood isn’t pro-family enough. What could possibly be more important than that?

Being Anti-gospel (Anti-Christ) trumps all the other "anti" or "pro" positions anyone could take.

Lent Comes of Age

2006-03-09T19:51:00.000-08:00

“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 Christians 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.

OK, so we have one 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.

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.

In 2006, 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.

Gosh, we need a few more traditions like that. [Note sacrcasm]

Wicked heresy and false shepherds were alive in Paul’s day… and more were expected.

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

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: search the scriptures whether these things are so.

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)

Traditions or Truth?

2006-02-21T14:20:00.000-08:00

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men Mark 7:7 (Matt 15:9)

This is vanity. This is what God calls a useless waste of time. Teaching people that which is not gleaned from the whole counsel of God, but that which is taken from the reasoning and traditions of men. Wrongly dividing the word of truth and putting others in bondage to systems, rituals, creeds and catechisms.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men Mark 7:8

This is where it leads: putting aside the truths of God so that we might follow the traditions of men. The Pharisees were the most learned men of their time. But the Lord Jesus informed them that although they poured over the scriptures, they misunderstood them because they did not see Him (Jn 5:39). The Lord told them that they taught error because they did not know the scriptures even though they poured over the law with a fine-tooth comb.

Paul was a Pharisee ("in regard to the law, a Pharisee" Phil 3:5), but he learned to look beyond the wisdom and teachings of men to seek the pure wisdom of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost (Spirit) teacheth. 1 Cor. 2:13

Their minds could not understand the scriptures they read because they allowed their traditions to cloud their thoughts. Instead of having their traditions challenged by the whole counsel of God, they placed their traditions as judge over the Word of God!

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15

This is one of the most beautiful verses in the Bible. It knows no sect. It posits no creed. It seeks no approval from a council or an "infallible" source. It claims no special privilege. It is a simple command from an omniscient God to a fallible people.

STUDY - Christian, this is a most glorious word! Think about it. By giving us this command, Almighty God reveals that he knows that we don't know all! None of us is infallible. We must all "study" diligently as a workman who seeks not to be ashamed. My friend, God wants you "search the scriptures daily" (Acts 17:11) and He knows that understanding is a process. But be careful, let your understanding be based not on human traditions and creeds, but on the whole counsel of God. We must "RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word of truth."

If God understands that we must study, then we must allow our fellow Christians to study. We must be "gentle, meek and apt to teach." We must allow others to grow. But if we know them to be teaching error then we must be able to refute them BY THE WORD OF GOD. (2 Tim 3:15-17)

If we know them to be teaching as doctrine the traditions of men, we must oppose them. Learn to discern between true "studiers" and those who engage is "vain babbling" which brings only strife. 2 Tim 2:16 tells us "shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."

THYSELF - There it is child of God. Your church, your pastor, your wife shall not be responsible for your reward before God. The Lord tells us all that we must study as INDIVIDUALS. We cannot lean on a catechism or an ecclesiastical body. It is the individual who is responsible to be a "workman [singular] that needeth not be ashamed."

APPROVED - There are doctrines and interpretations that the Lord approves and those that He does not approve. We are to study to seek those doctrines and practices that please Him, not our denomination. It is God who approves sound doctrine, not the seminary or the council or the synod or the board of directors. I can name 10 seminaries that teach 10 different things about baptism! It is not approval from the seminary that matters, it is the approval of God that matters.

UNTO GOD - It bears repeating that we seek to be approved "unto God;" approved not by a teacher, a sect, a denomination, a creed, an organization, a school or a ministry. Our responsibility is "unto God" alone.

I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. Psalm 119:99

Make His "testimonies" your meditation. This is where you will find greater understanding. "Rightly divide the word of truth." Do not steal that which is another's. Know to whom God is speaking and when He is speaking to them. Know your hope. Know your calling.

If you follow the traditions of men, your ears will be closed to the leading of God. Find a fellow "workman" and grapple with the word of truth. Surely God has raised up some to be teachers, but just as the Bereans did with the great teacher and apostle Paul, so must we "search the scriptures daily to see if these things are so" that we might be "approved unto God" and follow "sound doctrine."

Paul commanded Timothy to "commit these things [sound doctrine]" not to "clever men with degrees and titles" but to FAITHFUL MEN. Let us seek to be faithful to Him and His word and not to human traditions, no matter how "holy" the traditions are esteemed by men. The Lord Jesus tells us "The things which men esteem are an abomination to God."

STUDY THYSELF!

Visit my music space: http://myspace.com/michaelscottoband/

Just Denounce Trent

2006-01-13T19:21:00.000-08:00

OK, the Chuck Colsons and the Jim Dobsons of the world believe that something has changed at the Vatican. They want us to believe that the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document that they signed with their Catholic counterparts in 1994 puts to rest the major differences between Roman Catholic and Evangelical theology (namely, the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone) that have existed since the Reformation.

OK, Chuck, if that's the case, it should be a simple matter for those same Catholic signers to denounce the decrees of the Council of Trent. You remember Trent; the document that specifically condemns the Evangelical gospel scores of times in different ways?

I wouldn't believe any Catholic who says he believes what we believe about the merits of Christ's atonement on Calvary unless he is willing to denounce Trent. If we're right, then Trent must be wrong.

Oh, but there's a problem. By denouncing Trent, he would by extension be denouncing scores of Popes, Canon Law, the Second Vatican Council, the new Catholic Catechism, John Paul II... in essense, to denounce Trent is to denounce the Roman Catholic Church.

Just a taste:

"If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification...Let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Canon 9)

"If anyone says that men are justified either by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, or by the remission of sins alone, or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God...Let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Canon 11)

"If anyone says that the righteousness received is not preserved and also not increased before God by good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of its increase, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Canon 24)

"If anyone says that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed [ex opere operato, lit., "the work worked"] but [says] that faith alone in the divine promises is sufficient for the obtaining of grace, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Canon 8)

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluos, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Canon 4)

"If anyone says that baptism is optional, That is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Canon 4)

"If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, let him be anathema."
(Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8)

"If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, let him be anathema."
(Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1)

"If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified...let him be accursed."
(Council of Trent, Canon 12)

Oh yeah, The Second Vatican Council (Chuck Colson's favorite document) contains an anathema for denying the efficacy of indulgences or denying the Catholic Church's authority to grant them. You remember "indulgences" don't you, Chuck? They sort of triggered the Reformation.

And I don't care how you want to nuance "anathema," it certainly isn't a good thing! They can't say, "we respect and honor your gospel" while at the same time declaring it "anathema" and its adherents "enemies of the cross of Christ."

Nothing has changed, Chuck. They may have suckered you, but they can't fool me.

That's not to say that there aren't any saved Catholics. The problem is that they are ignorant of their own church's doctrines. If they truly understood the mass, if they truly understood Trent, if they truly understood the condemnations found in Trent, Unam Sanctam, the Syllabus of Errors, the First Vatican Council, the Second Vatican Council, the New Catholic Catechism and the decrees of scores of Popes... they'd leave the Catholic Church yesterday.

If truly born-again people are in the Catholic Church, they are in because they are either ignorant or willfully ignorant. One can't profess to hold to a belief while simultaneously condemning that same belief as "the great revolt against God."

And Trent is not the only problem. The new catechism has "eternal punishment" warnings for Catholics who miss mass or a "Holy Day of Obligation." It also repeats the eternal condemnation from Vatican II for those who either "leave" or "refuse to enter in" the Catholic Church.

Are you planning on "entering in," Chuck?

Christmas Shoes Misery

2005-11-26T08:05:00.000-08:00

The CCM band Newsong is once again basking in the glow streaming from their now perennial Christmas song, "Christmas Shoes."

On its own, it an ill-written pop song which effectively tugs at the heartstrings. Despite the huge gaps in the story line, it always manages to get a tear or two from its listeners.

Well, I am not overly concerned with the song on that level. If being a saccharine sweet Christmas song was all it intended to be, then I wouldn't waste valuable Blog time on it. Unfortunately, the song's writers, producers, and fans have attempted to assign it a greater place in our hearts.

Newsong, their label, and their fans want us to accept this song as some sort of powerful "Christian" song. That is why where I must draw the line.

The core of the Christian message is nowhere to be found in "Christmas Shoes". In fact, although the songs suggests that the message learned in clear, I am not even sure if I get it. Rest assured, however, the message is not the message of Christ.

"And I know these shoes would make her smile... And I want her to look beautiful if Mama meets Jesus tonight."

This lone mention of Jesus is obscure. It is so obscure that the execs at CBS were overcome by its "universal appeal" (their words) that "universal" is the word used at Newsong's own site! "Universal appeal" is not how I would describe the true Christian message.

The Jesus of this song doesn't save. He is merely the greeter of apparently anyone who dies. That may sound harsh, but if you want me to accept it as a "Christian" song then I know no other way to look at it! (Note: I don't believe anyone goes in a bodiless form to heaven anyway, but that is the subject of other entries. Here the implications in regard to justification are far more severe)

Bottom line: it is gospel-less and substitutes a universal "Jesus" for the real Christ. This false Jesus is cleverly hidden in an emotionally-dependent (yet ill-structured) pop song.

Paul warns of "another Jesus" and "another gospel" brought by "ministers of righteousness." Just because a song mentions Jesus and talks about heaven doesn't mean it's of God.

Merry Christmas.

Saddam, the RCC & the Death Penalty

2005-11-13T18:12:00.000-08:00

As the US Bishops prepare to meet in Washington, let us look at one of the issues they plan to address: their continued opposition to 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) 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 Catholicism.

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 5 Catholics on the Suprem Court choose between a "means of salvation" and the Constitutinality of something like the death penalty?

It's not so exciting anymore now is it?

One More "Unique" CCM Band

2005-10-07T20:41:00.000-07:00

Recently I saw a post at an internet group from a Christian band. They called themselves a "unique" Christian band. Part of their reasoning is this:

"We don't speak Christianese, and we don't shove God down people's throats. Some may ask what right we have to call ourselves a "Christian Band" being that we don't stomp the ground the moment we enter the door."

My first question is: where are all these CCM fans asking why you're not "stomping the ground" (or whatever)? And where are all these bands "shoving God down people's throats"? I've been looking for them since 1995!

Since my very first days in the Christian music scene, I have noticed a pattern. Just about every new Christian act thinks it's unique because they don't "get in your face" or "shove God down your throat" or "preach from the stage"... etc.

This pattern is so widespread that I guaranteed myself that when I visited the newest "unique" band's site, I would most certainly find a statement like the one quoted above.

The band's concern begs another question: if you're "unique" in Christian music, that would suggest that most big Christian artists are shoving God down people's throats... could you name a few... or just one? Truth is, if you follow Christian music, it is abundantly clear that being "unique" is pretty common!

Actually, what you most often get from CCM are attacks against the church! Rich Mullins attacked the gospel of grace itself. He was never shunned. Quite the reverse, he was almost deified on the pages of CCM Mag and is the patron saint of Christian musicians everywhere.

Grab any copy of CCM Magazine sporting an interview with a new band. Almost without exception the new artists will claim they are unique because they either (a) play secular venues (b) have lyrics so obscure, even Christians don't always know it's Christian or (c) they want the "unchurched" to know that they are just like them.

One band bragged that the owner of a bar was initially scared to book them because he heard they were a "Christian" band, but after they played he was thrilled that nobody could really tell! Remember, they bragged about this.

Granted, we all need to be gracious. And we certainly need to "speak the truth in love". But the key to that scripture is that we must "speak the truth". We are also called to "earnestly contend for the faith". We do it in love, we do it humbly, but we must do it! We are commanded by God to speak the truth and to contend for the faith.

Now, if you see an interview in CCM Magazine with a band contending for the faith, I would gladly assign the word "unique" to it! However, nowadays when I hear "unique" I just substitute "weak". In my heart I'm thinking "ashamed of the gospel", but I won't go that far... yet.

It's OK 'Cause They're Dead

2005-08-30T16:07:00.000-07:00

I heard a sermon recently that made a reference to the martyrs Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley. These two men were burned at the stake (as were thousands of others) for publicly denying the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (among other things). We admire these men for standing up for the gospel. We admire them because they were willing to defend the finished work of their Savior.

Good thing for them that they're dead.

If they were here today, they'd have less to worry about from the Catholic Church in terms of stakes, but they'd be in line for some pretty nasty press from so-called Evangelicals.

In the very same sermon that Latimer and Ridley were lauded, Mother Theresa was given as our example of "living for Jesus". I hate to have to point this out, but Theresa worshipped the very false doctrine of transubstantiation that thousands gave their lives to oppose. To those martyrs, "living for Jesus" meant defending His work on Calvary. To Theresa, she saw transubstantiation as the hope of mankind. She once lamented about not being able to send her nuns to certain places because those places had no priests. Without the priest, there could be no "sacrifice" of transubstantiation. Theresa was more concerned about living for the false Jesus of transubstantiation than she was for the true Jesus of the gospel.

In today's church, we don't mind admiring people who defend the faith... so long as they've been dead a few centuries. I have fellowshipped and worked in some of the most conservative, evangelical places in the United States. I have discovered something in my journeys: it matters not how saccharine sweet I try to be, it matters not how diligent I am in my research and presentation, the fact remains, that when it comes to the doctrines that hundreds of thousands thought serious enough for which to die, the modern church no longer has the stomach to object.

Oh, it's worse than that. Not only am I asked to censor my ministry to Roman Catholics and censor my testimony of salvation from the Roman system, amazingly I am asked to tolerate open displays of Catholicism in the church!

The Catholics around me are allowed to openly "bless" themselves or to write "JMJ" on their papers. Confronting such things, no matter how kindly, is verboten! Conversely, one mention of my Catholicism in giving my testimony and the murmuring begins. In one local publication any mention of my devout Catholic life was expunged from my testimony. So we are left with this: we are allowed to admire and talk about the great martyrs of the faith... we're just not allowed to mention why they were martyred or who murdered them. Most of all, we are shunned if we dare to stand in their place and oppose the very same doctrines for which they gave their blood.

The CCM Scenario

Since much of my blog commentary is in connection with Contemporary Christian Music (CCM), allow me to look at this topic from the view of that world. If you think opposing Catholic doctrine in a conservative church is hazadous, it's down right lethal in CCM!

I attended a concert featuring CCM artist Shaun Groves last fall. His "ministry" included attacking the United States ("the flag that dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki [etc]") and included the required attacks on the church for "not loving enough" (for which you'll never pay a price and for which you will always be lauded in the CCM press).

Shaun, of course, had a song attacking evangelicals for not caring enough about orphans of the world, etc. Not that I'm against orphans, but CCM is replete with songs attacking the true church for not being a socialist entity. How about just one song attacking the church for not preaching the gospel (as commanded) or for not defending the faith (as commanded)? How about a song attacking Rome for leading one billion souls astray? Judas seemed pretty concerned about the poor too.

Just as in CCM, it is considered "brave" to attack the true church in just about all evangelical circles these days. The CCM world almost requires a song along these lines to remain in a state of grace (sic) in hopes of any radio play. The chances of winning a Dove award increase with every neo-socialist, anti-evangelical lyric.

Late CCM "saint" Rich Mullins went so far as to mock "those Evangelicals" and spoke of our works as being "salvific". Whereas he should have been corrected and shunned as scripture commands for teaching such a wicked, anti-gospel doctrine, quite the opposite happened. He was, of course, labeled as "brave" and given "hero" status.

The trend in CCM down the path of apostasy will continue so long as (a) the CCM world shuns sound doctrine and embraces Catholicism and (b) the CCM critics continue to rely on Freudian psychology, unbiblical "back-beat" doctrines, and selective biblical exegesis based on pretext for their attacks. In both cases, the solution is simple: we need to get back to glorifying the Person, the Work and the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. That should be our criteria.

In general, CCM fails to do this and her critics waste time studying the effects of the back-beat on plant growth instead of emphasizing sound doctrine. The attacks on those of us who point out the eternal errors in Catholicism will continue. I expect such attacks to grow even worse as we near the end. I also expect the Freudian attacks on the music of CCM to continue. In all this, doctrine is sacrificed.

Instead of "earnestly contending for the faith" (Jude 3) and encouraging those who do, the church is mired in cowardice by refusing to rebuke false doctrine on one side and mired in "science (falsely so-called)" by presenting contradictory "studies" on the effects of the "back-beat" on the other.

It's about Christ. We need to defend His Person, His Work and His gospel. When we do that, we will be attacked, but just think, in a hundred years we may be in someone's sermon!

The Poor You Have With You Always

2005-07-07T20:15:00.000-07:00

I was reading an article in Israel My Glory magazine about Matthew 25. The writer made an excellent point. If we want the answer to who are Jesus’ “brethren” in Matthew 25:40 we need only look to those Jesus said were His brethren earlier in Matthew. He answers the question for us:

Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

So Jesus’ brethren are not a bunch of convicted rapists and terrorists who were rightly punished for their crimes (as both Peter and Paul attest too), they are those who are are doing the Father’s will. If all men are His “brethren” are the Pharisees Jesus’ “brethren” too? If not, why not? If all mankind are His brethren, then why did the Son of God say this “ye are of your father the devil”? How could people be the children of the devil (or the children of disobedience as Peter put it) and also be Jesus’ “brethren”?

In context of the Great Tribulation (Jacob’s Trouble) in Matthew 25, Jesus’ brethren who do the will of the Father will primarily be the 144,000 Jewish evangelists, the believing Jewish remnant and the few Gentiles who will believe. But we mustn’t let context get in the way of our predetermined tradition, can we?

Yesterday on Focus on Bad Theology, Jimbo had a guest who had written a book about his experiences as a self-appointed homeless person (he wanted to see how the “American Church” dealt with the homeless). He repeated the following human traditions multiple times:

“Jesus is constantly saying that we are to take care of the least of these His brethren”
“Jesus would hang around prostitutes, [etc.]”

Well, you’d be hard-pressed to prove that Jesus was “constantly” saying anything about “the least of His brethren.” Matthew 25 is pretty much it. And we have seen, in context, how it does not mean “all mankind everywhere.” Jim’s guest tried to justify his assertion with yet another reference to the false notion that all men are “created in the image of God.” (I covered that error in a previous post). Even the oft-quoted-without-regard-to-context passage in James (written to “the twelve tribes scattered abroad,” by the way) refers to caring for those in the church.

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Jesus did chastise the Pharisees for ignoring the poor of Israel which the Law commanded them to feed, however, Jesus Himself refused to feed the hungry on at least one ocassion. He ignored the pleas of a gentile woman and then ignores local Greeks who desire to speak with him on other ocassions (What Would Jesus Do? He’d ignore gentiles!).

In John 6, after feeding the five thousand, Jesus withdrew from the crowd because they didn’t understand His ministry. He then refused to feed them with physical bread and told them to seek the true bread from heaven. Had He wanted, He could have ended hunger not only in Israel, but in all the world. It should put things into perspective to note that not only did He not even come close to doing this, you could even argue that He had refused to do so.

Should we care for the poor? Should we visit the sick and imprisoned? Of course, but this is not the core message of Christianity. Even in caring for the poor, etc., Paul stresses that care for poor Christians comes first. By application these are truly “His brethren.” By believeing on Him whom the Father has sent, Christians are doing the will of God (Jn 6:29) and we are, hense, His “brethren.” There will be reward for those who give of themselves and comfort others… but primarily reward for giving to Christians and for comforting Christians. We were saved unto good works (Eph 2:10), but charity begins at home, as it were:

And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

As to all Jesus’ prostitute pals, we need to be careful how we generalize. Jesus did go to the outcast of Israel. He did have compassion on them. We are not be “respecters of persons” and we must therefore bring the good news of God’s grace to the world’s outcasts. However, that does not entail “hanging around” pimps, crack-heads and rapists. The tax collectors and prostitutes of Jesus’ day were as much a victim of the Pharisetical system as they were of anything else. Cast out of the temple, they were forced to become depedent on the Gentiles in Israel. Jesus certainly never approved of their behavior (see: the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery and Zaccheus).

Paul tells us that Jesus was “separate from sinners.” He gave His most intimate teachings and doctrines in small gatherings of His disciples. In that particular group there was at least one former tax collector and there may very well have been some former prostitutes. The key word here, however, is “former.” To use Paul’s phrase “such were some of you.”

I read the gospels and I see Jesus spending the bulk of his time with either His disciples or with the Pharisees. Oh, and He’s not meeting with the Pharisees to try and find “common ground.” If that kid really wanted to use Christ’s ministry as his example, he’d be better off confronting doctrinal error, preaching the truth and warning false teachings of their end. Maybe Jim could follow Jesus’ example and start upbraiding the false teachers of today. If he did that, it'd be OK with me if he also wanted to start “hanging around” prostitutes and drug addicts.

The world will love you if you merely "hang around" drug addicts, but try telling them the gospel or upbraiding false teachers and you'll suddenly get a glimpse of what Jesus' sufferings were all about... and you won't get invited on Jim Dobson's show.

Willful Ignorance to the Beat of Love

2005-06-14T19:38:00.000-07:00

2 Tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

In the most recent edition of the Birmingham Christian Family magazine, in the music review section, there is a glowing review of a new CD by Joe Ceravolo (Living to the Beat of Love). The writer, Ashley Cox, gives her full endorsement of the project represented by the following quotes from the article:

The Song “I Believe” leaves listeners little room for doubt as he sings…
His message rings true that even though all people are sinners, God is loving and forgiving.
The message in his worship music is clear.
Living to the Beat of Love not only reminds Christians of why they believe what they do, but it is also a powerful witnessing tool to share with others about Christ…

I noticed that Joe was Catholic so I wanted to investigate this “powerful witnessing tool” a little further. The first song that jumps off the track listing is “Please Pray, Maria.” I listened to a 2-minute sample of the song which is a litany of supplications to Mary asking her to pray. That should have been enough for Ms. Cox to pass on reviewing the project for a "Christian" magazine.

There was also this little gem to help remind Christians “why they believe what they do” in the song “Holy Spirit”: “With this bread and blood of life, fill us all with Christ’s own life.”

Since Ms. Cox was left with “little doubt” about Joe’s message and was reminded of what Christians believe, I wanted to know if Joe was just as certain, so I wrote to him. I asked him if he knew he was going to heaven in light of the fact that such a thought is considered a sin in Catholicism. This was his response (I use my middle name “Francis” when I write to Catholics; it makes them feel more comfortable):

Hi, Francis, I think you misunderstood the lyrics of 'This I Believe'. I at no time said that I know I am going to heaven... although I'm planning on it.Thanks for listening, Joe

Apparently Joe hasn’t read Ashley’s review. Either that or Ashley believes that praying to Mary, thanking the Holy Spirit for the mass, denying the finished work of Christ and being unsure of our eternal destiny are the core messages of Christianity.

Ashley says she has “little doubt” as to what Joe believes. I concur; I have little doubt as well. But I would never say that the message Joe brings is anything remotely like a “powerful witnessing tool.” Well not for the message of eternal life that I believe anyway. This is a textbook example of “having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.”

Joe says he loves Christ, believes Christ, honors Christ, knows Christ and worships Christ. He’s just not so sure that Christ can save him without his help. I know what Joe doesn’t believe; he doesn’t believe that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for him. Sure God is "loving and forgiving" just not that loving and forgiving.

Perhaps Ashley and the Birmingham Christian Family should provide Joe with a “powerful witnessing tool” I like to call “the gospel.”

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

The Birmingham Christian Family magazine has been an "inclusive" magazine for some time. In a recent edition they actually featured Catholic apologist and priest Mitchell Pacwa (of all people). Mitch is famous for his debates with Evangelicals (and the topic is not “How can we agree on the gospel even more?”).

BCF magazine and Ashley Cox would rather overlook the eternal fate of their readers rather than risk offending someone. Sadly, this is the norm in Christian media today. How many souls are we “comforting” into perdition? How much blood will God require at our hands? I guess I just don't "love" people the way BCF and Ashley Cox do.

Her next article? "Ignoring the Gospel to the Beat of Love."

Absent from What Body?

2005-06-02T20:33:00.000-07:00

I’ve heard the phrases “we are all God’s children” and “we are all created in the image God” several times recently, so I had to vent…

Two of the most insidious ideas that permeate the church these days are (1) that all men are created in the image of God and (2) that all men are God’s children. The second should be obvious folly to anyone who has been “born again” and realizes that we had to BECOME sons of God by faith (John 1:12; etc.) and by adoption. Despite the obvious doctrinal problem in that I still hear all men referred to in this way (“we are all God’s children”) from the lips of evangelicals.

The first, however, is more Satanic in its deception. Satan was very subtle in the garden with Eve. His misquotes of God’s Word are subtle, yet they were enough to beguile the ill-taught Eve. I believe the same is true of the oft-quoted idea the all men are “created in the image of God.” Simply put, we are not. Only Adam and Jesus (the “second Adam” and the “last Adam”) were created directly by God. They are rightly called “sons of God.” As noted we BECOME sons of God, but we are not a direct creation of God in the natural man.

Far from being made in the image of God, we are made in the image and likeness of the fallen Adam. We are the “offspring of God” only in the sense that we are the result of His creation of Adam. We are of “one blood” in Adam.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

We are only truly “born of God” when we “believe on his name.” At that point we are a NEW CREATION, that is, a direct creation of God and thus “sons.” Our new nature is eternal and is a “partaker of the divine nature” as Peter describes it.

The failure to understand the difference between the complete lostness and corruption of the old nature that we are born with compared with the eternal and pure nature created in us by grace when we believe is at the root of many of today’s false teachings. In addition, the failure to understand this reality has many Christians trapped in a struggle to reform their flesh and troubled by doubts concerning their salvation.

They also lose sight of the hope of the incorruptible and immortal body that will be the new house of the new nature. The resurrection is the great hope of man that was won by Christ! We should be longing for the day of our own resurrection.

1 Cor 15:42-45 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It [the body] is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Paul groaned for this “spiritual body” in resurrection:

1 Cor 15:47-55 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Our victory over death does not come at death. It comes at our resuurection!

One of the most misquoted verses of the NT is a statement Paul made concerning his new body. A single verse is ripped from its context, misquoted and then misapplied. Paul groaned for his immortal body. Paul “groaned” not to be a disembodied spirit, but to be “clothed upon” with his new “house” (2 Cor 5:2). He groaned waiting for “the redemption of the body” (Rom 8:23). In this “tabernacle” we too should groan to be “clothed upon” and that mortality should be “swallowed up of life” (2 Cor 5:4).

Note how verse 8 below is often misquoted (“absent from the body and present with the Lord”) and misapplied:

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

The word “rather” is key. It denotes a preference in a previous comparison. The two options clearly given in the passage are being clothed in our current earthly tabernacle versus being clothed in our new house. In either instance we are “clothed”

Note the promise hoped for and the focus of the “groaning” here again. It is to be “clothed upon with our house which is from heaven.” As we live in this current “earthly house of this tabernacle” we are “confident” that when this house is dissolved in death (in corruption) we shall not be without a house (i.e. “naked”), but the Sprit has assured us in Christ that we shall be “clothed upon” with an immortal tabernacle. That hope of resurrection has not been completely lost in the church, but it has surely been obscured. Even at Christian funerals, the hope of resurrection is either minimized or not mentioned at all. It is for this hope of resurrection that Jesus came. He is “the resurrection and the life.”

As we look at verse 8 in context we can see that Paul’s desire there is built upon his confidence in the “earnest of the Spirit” that he will someday be “clothed upon” in his “house which is in heaven.” It is not some lone statement about dieing and going in a disembodied state to be with the Lord. Christ’s victory for us in His resurrection was that He conquered the tomb. He was victorious over death (the last enemy). The glory of His resurrection is lost if we fail to see the hope of our own resurrection in His victory. He is the first fruits of

The OT saints also had this hope as exemplified by Job:

“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…”

Job’s hope is clearly in resurrection. He does not say that when he dies that he is confident that he will see God, but “in his flesh” he will see God despite his old body being corrupted in the grave.

The Book of Genesis makes the idea that we are created in Adam’s image very clear, but people don’t want to accept it.

Gen 5:1-3 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

God created Adam “in the likeness of God,” but Adam’s sons (after the fall) were created is “his” fallen image. The same is true to this day. As God is eternal, so Adam would have been eternal (i.e. “in his image”). We are not eternal because we are not made in God’s eternal image, but in Adam’s image and we “shall surely die”.

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned…

Now that we are born again as sons of God we need to live as though our citizenship is in heaven. Note again the hope detailed in the following verse:

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

We look for Jesus to “change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body”!

That is your hope, Christian!

Pray Five Times Towards Mecca

2005-05-09T12:33:00.000-07:00

The national day of prayer has come and gone once again. The heathen think their prayers are heard for their much repetition...

On FOTF Jim Dobson featured his wife Shirley, who heads up the thing, and they had this short exchange:

Shirley: Prayer is one of the best hopes for our nation.

Jim: It's the only hope.

There then ensued a discussion of this "only hope" and of God answering a nation's prayers if they call on Him.

I don't want to get too picky, but what was absent from the entire half-hour discussion was the gospel. Prayer is important, but it must be qualified. Muslims "religiously" pray five times a day towards Mecca (every single day), but NOBODY is listening (see: the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel). Every day is a "National Day of Prayer" in Saudi Arabia. Lots of "people of faith" in Iran too.

Dobson NEVER qualified "prayer" or to whom these prayers must be directed... and he certainly never said anything about WHO'S prayers God promised to hear.

He's scared to. He knows that Christ divides. The gospel divides. This is just one more example of the good doctor's willful ignorance and his predilection for putting good politics over the good news.

FOTF Spits on a Few Hundred Thousand Graves

2005-05-08T13:08:00.000-07:00

"Satan presents himself as an angel of light. It is no wonder then that his ministers are the ministers of righteousness." 2 Cor 11

Just after Terri Schiavo went to the grave, "Psychologist and Author" Dr. James Dobson opened up his mocrophones to a Catholic priest. One has to be ignorant of RCism for even inviting a priest on his show. The sad truth about Jim Dobson, however, is that his ignorance is self-imposed. He has been made aware of the vast differences between the gospel of the free grace of God and the gospel (i.e. "another gospel" Gal 1; 2 Cor 11) even by members of his own board.

On that recent broadcast, Jim's willful ignorance is betrayed more than once:

At the 5:15 mark Dobson praises "Pri-ests for Life". What's next Jim, praising "Muslims for Monotheism"? Oh yeah... Vat II already praised them for that!

At the 5:52 mark Jim laments that Fr. Pavone was not allowed to see Terry to provide her "Pastoral care" the last two days of her life. "Pastoral care!"

At the 6:10 mark Jim asks if calling him "Father Frank" is "too familiar" to which Pavone answers "no, I like that." Of course he does! Dobson should have followed with, "Great, and you can call me Saint James."

At the 8:25 mark Dobson asks Pavone as a priest who has been with many people as they die what it was like to be there with Terry. I'd have prefered "Explain for us 'extreme unction' so our listeners will know that you don't believe what we believe about Christ and salvation."

At the 15:00 mark Dobson raised the communion question. "Father" Pavone tells us that she received "communion in liquid form" on Easter. I'd like to know why Dobson was so concerned?

QUOTE: "Fr. Pavone you were there on the scene. It is my understanding that another pri-est was denied the right to give Terry communion right at the end. Is that correct?"

Note: You could have left that question unasked! In fact, the pri-est, fortunately, quickly changed the topic... but why did you (a) ask the question and/or (b) care whether she had communion or not? At my grandomother's funeral, I stayed for the first part and then quietly took my family out when the "mass" started with the "Liturgy of the Eucharist." I loved my grandmother, but I love my Savior more.

At the 23:30 mark he asked the Priest for his last words and Pavone goes on about "repentance". Why not a question about absolution?

Dobson's listeners are once again duped into believeing that RCism is just another legitimate expression of Christianity. He could have had Pavone on, called him Frank and just asked for an insider's view... but, no, Dobson lets him go on about prayer and repentance and then asks him about communion!

Good grief, Jim, are you that deceived?