Musings From Our Caffeinated Highs

Timeless Truth and Timely Methods

2012-02-09T01:54:00.001-07:00

Early on in my career as a Starbucks customer, I noticed more and more of my Christian friends reading the same book. It had a purple cover, though it was the subtitle that ultimately did me in: “Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality.” Blue Like Jazz was the book “everyone” was suddenly interested in (everyone except me, apparently *grin*). At the time I was on this kick of reading any book that was seemingly having an influence on the Church. While I never did break that habit, I was able to work my way through Donald Miller’s work.

Blue Like Jazz is one of those rare books where I actually *felt* dumber after reading it. I mean, come on, any book that dedicates 31 pages of pointless cartoons can’t be taken seriously can it? One more quick rabbit trail before I plunge into the real purpose of this blog article … one of the funny things about Miller’s book is that when you ask people who’ve read it what they think it was about, the most common answer is: “I don’t know.”

In any case, it was in this book that I first heard of Mark Driscoll. And it was not a good introduction:

“I had this friend from Seattle named Mark who was the pastor of a pretty cool church near the University of Washington, in the village. He had a lot of artists going to his church and a lot of hippies and yuppies and people who listen to public radio. I went up and visited him one time, and I loved the community he had put together. I felt like I could breathe for the first time in years. Visiting Mark’s church in Seattle helped me realize I wasn’t alone in the world. I would talk to my friends about his church, to my friends at the church I was attending, but they didn’t get it.

Mark had written several articles for secular magazines and had been interviewed a few times on the radio and had gotten this reputation as a pastor who said cusswords. It is true that Mark said a lot of cusswords. I don’t know why he did it. He didn’t become a Christian till he was in college, so maybe he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to say cusswords and be a pastor. I think some of my friends believed that it was the goal of the devil to get people to say cusswords, so they thought Mark was possessed or something, and they told me I should not really get into anything he was a part of. Because of the cusswords. But like I said, I was dying inside, and even though Mark said cusswords, he was telling a lot of people about Jesus, and he was being socially active, and he seemed to love a lot of people the church was neglecting, like liberals and fruit nuts. About the time I was praying that God would help me find a church, I got a call from Mark the Cussing Pastor, and he said he had a close friend who was moving to Portland to start a church and that I should join him.” (Blue Like Jazz, p. 133-134. Bold Mine).

I urge the reader to do yourself a favor and not read Blue Like Jazz or anything else by Miller (other books include Searching for God Knows What – which is nearly as pointless). But Miller did do one thing for me, and that was to introduce me to “the Cussing Pastor,” Mark Driscoll.

Pinpointing the exact date is impossible now, but it was a few months after Miller’s book (sometime in 2004) that I began hearing more and more about this pastor who cusses. Christian friends began listening to his sermons, and as time went on I learned that he was a Charismatic Calvinist (that is, a Charismatic and a Calvinist), and very cool taboot. Unfortunately, the more I learned about Mark Driscoll the more problem areas I was discovering. Friends were reading his book, The Radical Reformission, where he invites the reader to “begin a radical journey with me as we explore what life in Christ can mean in the context of an emerging church in a changing world” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 23).

Up to this point, my initial reaction to Driscoll was this: how can this man honestly be qualified for the office of Elder with such a filthy mouth? Don’t misunderstand me, I recognize that Christians let expletives slip out from time to time. But this is something we ought not to be proud of, and work hard not to do. I remember listening to sermons with my friends where he is cursing, and then I would read Ephesians 4:29, “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear” (NASB). With the luxury of hindsight, I might also have read from the pastoral epistles regarding the qualifications of an Elder.

Because I’m not one to rely on hearsay only, I quickly bought and read The Radical Reformission. Little did I know that I was about to open up the can of worms known now as “The Emerging Church Movement” (ECM). Mark explains the beginnings of the ECM:

“A team of young pastors, including myself, was then formed by Leadership Network, and we flew around the country speaking to other pastors about the emerging culture and the emerging church … Now that the time has come to write, I am presenting this book as a contribution toward the furtherance of the emerging church in the emerging culture.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 16-17).

Fine; but what is the purpose of the Emerging Church Movement (ECM)? Driscoll explains:

“Our lives shape, and are shaped by, the culture we live in, and the gospel must be fitted to (not altered for) particular people, times, and circumstances so that evangelism will be effective … We have the church, or the gathering of God’s people – which includes those who are not Christians (Matt. 13:24-30) – where people are built up in their faith and knitted together in loving community. They can then faithfully engage those in the culture with the gospel, while experiencing its transforming power in their own lives.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 20-21).

Based on the annotations I made on these pages it is safe to assume I did a double take when I read that. Some of what he says is true, like how our lives shape and are shaped by the culture. However, he strays way off of the straight and narrow path when he speaks of the church being made up of Christians and non-Christians. He builds on this point throughout the book to such an extent that I am certain he did not misspeak here. In fact, he explains his view of evangelism called “Reformission Participation Evangelism” which he describes as “Belong to the church, then believe in Jesus” (Driscoll, p. 68) and “Reformission evangelism blurs the lines between evangelism and discipleship” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 73). He continues:

“In reformission evangelism, people are called to come and see the transformed lives of God’s people before they are called to repent of sin and to trust in God. Taking a cue from dating is helpful on this point. If we desire people to be happily married to Jesus as his loving bride, it makes sense to let them go out on a few dates with him instead of just putting a shotgun to their heads and asking them to hurry up, put on a white dress, and try to look happy for the photos.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 68, Bold Mine).

Here we arrive at the heart of the matter. Is the Church made up of Christians and non-Christians? I believe the Bible is abundantly clear that though unbelievers are welcome to attend corporate worship meetings, the visible Church (those who have made a sound profession of faith) is made up men and women who have submitted themselves to the authority of elders at a local church and have become a part of that fellowship. This is a clear presupposition of the Apostles in their writings: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17, NASB). Notice also that the author presupposed the elders will give an account to God on how well they watched over the souls of Christians under their care. This means they had to know who they were, knew of a convincing profession of faith, and kept an account of their spiritual well-being. Let me now ask the question: how does this fit with what Driscoll is suggesting?

How does Driscoll put his “belong then believe” model into practice? He goes into detail:

“Since the gospel must be contextualized in a way that is accessible to the culture and faithful to the Scriptures, God’s people must continually review their presentation of the gospel to ensure that the form in which they present it is the most effective one.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 55-56).

We finally arrive at one of the common terms used by the ECM: “contextualize.” Which is their way of saying, “change the style, presentation method, and setting to become as ‘relevant’ as possible to achieve the best results while preaching the gospel” (not a quote). I’m left scratching my head at this point because the gospel is already relevant to every culture. We are all sinners, and therefore the message is about as relevant as it can be. Nothing in the style or presentation can have a positive impact in the saving of one’s soul. In fact, we are only the planters and waterers (if that is a word) of the seeds of truth – only God causes growth (1 Corinthians 3:7).

I remember talking with a group of pro-Driscoll Christians about how Driscoll’s entire philosophy of ministry seemed inconsistent with Calvinism, because he acts as though his cool methods might actually have an impact in saving men’s souls. We know that men are unable to repent and believe in and of themselves. They lack the ability: “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (Romans 8:7, NASB).

Please pay special attention to this next citation, as Driscoll puts his methods in plain detail:

“Reformission Christians and churches exist to perpetuate the gospel and should be swift to change their cultural forms if they are not the most beneficial for achieving that goal. This is what Paul told the Corinthians about being all things to all people and using all means to see as many people as possible saved (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Reformission churches have to continually examine and adjust their musical styles, websites, aesthetics, acoustics, programming, and just about everything but their Bible in an effort to effectively communicate the gospel to as many people as possible in the cultures around them.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 100, Bold Mine).

That’s quite a list of things in a state of constant flux. Again we see the focus on the outward appearance of everything: the style, the aesthetics, sound quality, “and just about everything but their Bible” to communicate the gospel to as many as possible. But is this really necessary, and more importantly, is it Biblical? Driscoll does cite 1 Corinthians 9, but is he interpreting and applying it correctly? Paul does clearly state that he has “become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22b, NASB). Sentences before this the Apostle discusses becoming a Jew to the Jews, and to the Gentiles a Gentile. So doesn’t this prove Pastor Mark’s point? Is he not justified in making sure the sound system is as relevant as possible so he might save others who might otherwise be turned off to the gospel?

I believe that what Paul is not talking about here is a “coolness” factor, or the style of dress, but rather a recognition of where they are coming from spiritually. We can certainly agree that Paul would not have sought to needlessly offend his hearers (such as eating pork in front of Jews), but to go to the great lengths that Mark describes is where we part company. Remember that Paul wrote elsewhere: “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5, NASB) and “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? … For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:20b, 22-23, NASB).

Driscoll functionally disagrees with God by believing he can do a better job of making the gospel more relevant through aesthetics. To say it directly, since the Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom, should we provide signs and wisdom? The obvious answer is: of course not. Yet Driscoll’s philosophy would seemingly seek to.
Continuing on, how does Pastor Mark suggest we understand the culture so we can preach a relevant gospel? He provides a to-do list meant for small groups or families. Here is the first point on his list:

Try shopping at a new grocery store, reading magazines (especially their ads) you would never pick up (middle-aged male plumbers could read Cosmo Girl), listening to new music (Christian-pop fans would do well to tune in the hardcore station), listening to new teachers (Christian-radio fans should tune in to a sexual talk program like Tom Leykis or Howard Stern), and watching a movie you normally would not.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 131-132).

My heart goes out to the many Christians who have decided to take this advice in a vain attempt to be more effective evangelists. Not only does it not make them more effective (if anything it makes one less effective), but some things in this list would certainly cause Christians to stumble and fall into sin. Applying this consistently, are we really to become intimately familiar with everything sinners do so that we can share the good news of Christ with them? I’ve got news for Mark, Christians are already perfectly suitable for discussing the gospel with any sinner. Wanna guess why? Because all Christians are fellow sinners. We have that in common. What’s more, our message is unbelievably good news for sinners. I only wish he saw it that way.

Does Mark Driscoll have an opinion of churches he deems uncool or irrelevant? Yup, sure does:

“For example, a pastor friend of mine was hired by a dying church. At one time, the church’s enormous facility had housed nearly nine thousand people, but the congregation had dwindled over the years to roughly one hundred, most of whom were beyond retirement age. They hired him in hopes of keeping their church from joining the more than three thousand churches in the United States that die each year. What he quickly learned, however, was that while they wanted things to change, they did not want to change. To this day, they remain unwilling to change the aesthetics of their very dated sanctuary, or to upgrade their sound system, which is nearly thirty years old, or to reconsider the style of their worship music, or to make any adjustments to their programming or philosophy of ministry.” (The Radical Reformission, p. 50).

My church sings a song with a line that reads: “We long to see Your churches full…” How true that is, and how sad it is when a church has to close its doors. What saddens me with this church’s scenario is not the falling numbers so much as the suggested reason for their dwindling numbers. It is suggested that if only the church would update their style, their sound system and outdated sanctuary … they would draw in the crowds. While the Christian should always rejoice with new converts to the true faith, a church’s success or failure is not based on the number of regular attendees or members. My elders have preached more than once that sometimes church numbers shrink because of the truth being presented – and that isn’t a bad thing.

Traveling through time and space to the year 2008, Mark Driscoll has stopped cursing (thankfully), left the Emerging Church Movement, and has certainly grown up a bit. Emily and I visited his church when we were in Seattle a few years back, and so I picked up a copy of his latest book: Vintage Church. Anxious to see if any of his views have changed I started the book on the flight home.

Cussing is not the end all be all of sins, but even so, I rejoice with the fact that Driscoll was called out for his foul language, and ultimately stopped using curse words (especially in his sermons). Still, it is a fair question: how did he ever make it to the Eldership with that kind of language?

News hit that Driscoll had left the Emerging Church Movement because of heretics like Rob Bell (a universalist) who were also a part of the movement. Again, I applaud him for this. However, did any of Driscoll’s personal views that are at the core of the ECM change? Nope. His views about the church’s philosophy of ministry are nearly identical. So what’s different or new? Well, he still heads up the Acts 29 Network of churches, employing the ECM philosophy – though not affiliated with the ECM.

He still criticizes churches for their failure to incorporate the culture into the church:

“Not far from my home is a small church that has struggled for years. Every time I drive by that church I pray for it because I love the church, in general, and I know that this church, in particular, has a long history of loving Jesus and believing in the Bible. But it got stuck in a culture cul de sac, so it couldn’t adapt as culture changed. Younger people couldn’t connect so they didn’t come. The people died off so that virtually no one was left. The pastor was discouraged and struggled to know what to do. So I decided to try to meet the pastor to see what I could do to encourage and serve him. Thus far I have had no success, despite repeated efforts. Their lack of technology is part of the problem.” (Driscoll, Vintage Church, p. 267, Bold Mine).

Just so we’re clear: Driscoll says this church is failing because it didn’t adapt the culture of the church to match the culture of the world. Alpha and Omega Ministries did not come up with this phrase, but it is very applicable here: “What you win them with is what you win them too.” Translation: if you win new church members because of worldly culture guess what you won them to? Yup, worldly culture.

Commenting on sermons, Pastor Mark says the following:

“Learn from politicians, stand-up comedians, and anyone else who stands on a stage to speak to a crowd for a living. I know the fundamentalists who read this would freak out to think that Dave Chappelle, Carlos Mencia, Chris Rock, or Dane Cook have anything to teach a Bible teacher, but the fundamentalists fail to recognize that their team begins with the word fun, and they are guilty of false advertising because they are no fun at all.” (Driscoll, Vintage Church, p. 105-106).

Is this supposed to be an argument? Because making a clever play on words saying that the Fundamentalists are no fun at all, doesn’t make his point valid. He is right about one thing though: us fundamentalists do completely disagree with him that Elders should learn how to preach from the likes of Dave Chappelle and other comedians. Compare that idea with what Paul says about the duties of an elder: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:1-5, NASB). Did the Apostle forget to include “fun”? I’m sure he didn’t.

Does this mean an elder should try to be as boring as possible? Of course not. But at the same time an elder should not try to make his sermons “fun.” God’s people deserve good preaching, not a comedy show. Is it okay to have a joke or two in a sermon? Absolutely! But this is far from trying to have a sermon reach a certain level of fun-ness, or by mimicking Dave Chappelle.

Earlier I mentioned how “contextualization” is a key element of Driscoll’s view (and that of the ECM) of a church’s philosophy of ministry:

“Too many churches are built solely to accommodate religious people, even though their culture and cultural methods of ministry are not welcoming or hospitable to those outside their Christian culture. Contextualization is about making the church as culturally accessible as possible without compromising the truth of Christian belief. In this, what is sought is timeless truth and timely methods. In other words, contextualization is not making the gospel relevant, but showing the relevance of the gospel.” (Driscoll, Vintage Church, p. 228, Bold Mine).

This is an example that Mark Driscoll has been paying attention to his critics. That last sentence in particular is (I believe) a direct response to those of us who have criticized him for his views on blurring the lines between evangelism and discipleship. You can say all day long that contextualization is not an attempt to make the gospel relevant, but it doesn’t make it true. It sounds more polished than how The Radical Reformission put it, but the statement “timeless truth and timely methods” proves he doesn’t consistently apply this belief.

I’m glad that I can at least agree with Driscoll on not compromising on the truth (although the recent events surrounding the Elephant Room 2 would prove me wrong). We already know that what he means by “timely methods” can include anything from the sound system, to technology, style, websites, and other aesthetics.

Nothin’s really new here, except that Vintage Church is a much better written and better thought-out product than earlier books. Although, there is one noticeably new difference in his emerging (pun intended =)) viewpoint on the church: multi-campus or multi-site churches. In fact, he dedicates an entire chapter to this subject in Vintage Church. He uses video-broadcasting via the Internet or Satellite so his sermons can be broadcast into multiple church campuses.

More and more churches are following this kind of church model. In fact, I had friends who attended a mega-church in high-school who were one of the first in my area to implement this idea. Today, many more churches are doing the same thing. The proponents of this viewpoint argue that “this is what works for us." My problem with that is this view is unbiblical. In the New Testament, we see the Apostles had elders appointed in churches in every city (Titus 1:5). Previously I discussed how the presupposition of the New Testament is that one’s elders actually know you.

So let me ask the proponents of multi-campus churches: in light of Hebrews 10:17, can elders honestly keep watch over your soul if they are being broadcast via satellite or the Internet? Can they give an account to God on how they cared for you?

If I were a proponent of multi-campus churches I might respond like this: “That’s why each campus has their own set of elders, so we can be cared for.” I would simply ask: isn’t there someone qualified at the campus who can teach, rather than broadcasting an elder you don’t know into your location? The real issue boils down to the fact that the New Testament describes church government in such a way that a church’s elders are to teach that group of people. We see this in one of Peter’s epistles: “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it overthose allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1-3, NASB). Notice that Peter is speaking to the elders “among you” and exhorts them to shepherd the flock “among you.” He is not speaking about elders of some other church caring for another flock. Rather, he speaks to elders shepherding "those allotted to your charge.”

We’re nearing the conclusion of this Great-Wall-of-China of a post. I know that it’s been a long journey for us to arrive at this point, but I wanted the reader to see Driscoll’s own words to better understand his philosophy of church ministry.

Unfortunately, there are a few final things we need to cover before I announce my conclusions of what to make of Mark Driscoll. Please take a moment to watch this 5 minutes video of Pastor Mark preaching on spiritual warfare and the gift of discernment, commonly known now as the “I See Things” Video. There are so many problematic things from this video that it is difficult to know where to begin. I’ll do my best…

First, the issue is not whether God *can* communicate extra-Biblical revelations to us. Of course the Lord has that ability – He is the Creator of communication. The underlying issue is that with the ceasing of Apostles and of new Scripture, the revelatory gifts have also ceased. We have a completed revelation of everything we need to function as Christians. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (NASB). This is called Sola Scriptura – which is denied by those advocating for continuing extra-Biblical revelation, because at its heart, Sola Scriptura recognizes the Scriptures as the sufficient rule of faith for the Christian. Therefore, when Driscoll claims to receive personal revelations from God outside of the Bible, we know this is either from one of two sources: from his vain imaginings (Jeremiah 23:16) or the devil (2 Corinthians 11:14).

Second, what troubles me most from this sermon is that he encourages the audience that some of them might also have the same gifting to “see things.”

We have finally reached the end of this lengthy discussion about Driscoll, and I’d like to conclude by asking a question: what has Mark Driscoll done to earn the right to be an influence in your life? Because that is the real question that needs answering. Has he done anything to earn that privilege? If your answer is: “Well I’ve listened to some of Mark Driscoll’s sermons, and found some things that were a great encouragement to me,” might I respond by asking: but what about the many shortcomings? I recognize we all have shortcomings, as Christians. We sin every day. But elders are called to be above reproach, and blameless. What this means is not that they have to be perfect, but that their shortcomings cannot include some of the things Driscoll fails in.

He is an elder of a church, and a leader in the Acts 29 Network (and formerly of the Emerging Church Movement). Shouldn’t he be held accountable to the Word of God for his unbiblical view of church government (multi-campus churches)? How about his desire to always be involved in the controversial?

Pastor Mark is lacking in one area more than others: discernment. He would rather appear cool to the world, incorporating the world’s culture into the church … rather than focus on the foolishness of preaching (1 Conrinthians 1:21), which is the means God uses to save sinners. Even more recently, he participated in a discussion called the Elephant Room 2 where he overlooked T.D. Jakes’ heretical modalistic views (views that deny the Trinity). The conclusion of the Elephant Room 2 discussion was that Jakes believes in the same God and should be welcomed into the family of God. Again, we see a common theme: a lack of discernment.

Now to be fair, I am not suggesting that everything Mark Driscoll does is wrong, bad, or even unbiblical. What I am saying is that he is a combination of good and bad things, and we ought not to have him as a positive influence in our lives. So if you read his books, do so from a desire to better prepare yourself against his current unbiblical views on church government and philosophy of ministry. If you listen to his sermons, for the same reason. I would recommend not to spend your time subscribing to his podcast for your spiritual betterment – because he has proven himself unfit for the task.

I pray that God might grant repentance to Pastor Mark, that he might change his unbiblical views, but that specifically our Lord might grant to him a spirit of wisdom (Ephesians 1:17) – as well as to all of us.

Thank you for sticking with me,
Metzger

“LGBT”–Just When I Thought I Had it…

2012-02-07T22:41:00.001-07:00

Just when I thought I had it, they went and changed it. “LGBT,” of course, is an acronym for “Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender,” representing the gay rights movement. They have since expanded the acronym to “LGBTQIP,” which means: “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer/Questioning Intersexed/Intersexual Pansexual/Polysexual etc.” And all I can say is … wow. I wasn’t prepared for that.

I had the privilege of working my way through Michael Brown’s A Queer Thing Happened to America: And what a long, strange trip it’s been. He successfully provides a history of the homosexual (and other sexual orientations) movement in America. He explains the birth of the movement, their goals, what they have accomplished, and concludes by offering thoughts on how we, as Christians, ought to respond.

To my homosexual friends, before I continue I wanted to speak to you for a moment. I want to be clear about a few things because I know how emotionally charged this issue can be. First, I am a Christian, which means that I believe homosexuality is sinful. It is sinful because the Lord says so in the Bible and He has defined the way in which human sexuality is to be expressed. Second, I am, however, opposed to any violence or persecution done towards the homosexual community. There is no excuse for the mistreatment of any human being, regardless of their sexuality. We are all equal in value because we are all made in the image of the triune God. Thirdly, though we may disagree, I would hope for the opportunity to have a civil conversation about these important subjects because of the great impact it has on Western Civilization.

Brown’s work has had a tremendous impact on my life already, and I would urge you to read the book if you have time to do so. It is, at times, full of historical and statistical information – which can be a bit dry at times – but very useful. I am not an alarmist, and do not want to sound like one (Michael Brown mentions more than once in his book that he doesn’t either). But the factual information in this book is helpful in understanding where our culture is at when it comes to homosexuality.

If you’ve been in the workforce over the past decade (as I have) you have noticed a monumental shift in people’s attitude towards homosexuality. Our culture shifted from awkwardness to passiveness to rabid support. Support is now said to be in the name of “diversity,” and Brown spends a good amount of time explaining how this is used to mean anything non-Christian, especially in favor of homosexual activism. My last two jobs are both fully on board in offering their support for same-sex marriage, homosexual equality, and homosexual activist groups.

Being a Christian in this kind of environment becomes difficult because we can’t support this kind of “diversity” because it would force us to go against our religious convictions. But as you have probably discovered the “diversity” we are talking about really isn’t meant to include the views of Christians, but only of the one-sided perspective of gay activists. There is no support of pro-family organizations, or of any “traditional” viewpoint. I would ask the reader: is this really diversity?

Hot topics such as this often stir up all sorts of emotions because we are dealing with people’s sexuality, which is a core element of each one of us. It is important. Yet, as Christians, we are required by God to disagree with homosexuality out of love – both love for God, and for those practicing the homosexual lifestyle. Sadly, some lack the ability to understand how one can disagree with the lifestyle choices of another and yet still love them. Nevertheless, this is how the Christian is supposed to operate. We may strongly and passionately disapprove of homosexuality but we are required by our God to love all people.

Homosexuality (and sexuality in general) will be one of the hot topics Christians can use to speak the truth to a lost and dying world. While the world is demanding that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples and polyamorous (i.e. polygamy) relationships, we must be ready and willing to respond with the Bible as our primary weapon. The Holy Spirit uses the preaching of the gospel as the primary means to save sinners from their sinful lifestyle, unto repentance and life in Jesus Christ. Isn’t this precisely what Paul said: “¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16, NASB). Amen to that.

Appreciate you reading,
Metzger

Love Triumphs Over Truth?

2012-02-04T22:51:00.002-07:00

Picture this: a group of Christian leaders from different backgrounds, ministry perspectives and life experiences coming together for the sake of unity. Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? This was the essential purpose of the Elephant Room 2 (ER2). Unfortunately, ER2 was destined to encounter serious problems one of the 7 men on the list was none other than T.D. Jakes, a renowned Modalist. Other notables include the now infamous Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, and James McDonald. An interesting bunch of men, to be sure, but what did it produce?

If you’ve had your head out of the sand for any length of time you know the Internet has been buzzing about the sad results for days on end. What was most disappointing to me, personally, was the segment of time spent discussing Jakes’ view of the godhead. The big question (arguably the only decent question too) put to Jakes was by Driscoll asking him about his use of the term “manifestations.” This was an important question because Modalism believes that God consists of one divine Person who expresses himself in different modes or manifestations. Jakes replied by citing 1 Timothy 3:16, continuing to defend his use of the term manifestations!

If ever Jakes should have been asked what he meant by this, this would have been the time. But what actually happened? Nothing. Jakes was given a pass by the other 6 men, including Mark Driscoll. I am in complete agreement with Dr. James White who comments: “Driscoll and the rest heard what they wanted to hear, fist-bumped and applauded, and all was well. It would have been so painfully simple to bring this entire question to a complete conclusion.”

It was not as though Driscoll is ignorant of the essential issues at stake here. He received his Graduate degree in exegetical theology from Western Seminary, and knows all the core essential differences between the Trinity and Modalism. Yet he would not defend the Biblical view. Instead he chose to pretend all is well for the sake of unity, leaving many people with the false impression that T.D. Jakes is a Trinitarian.

The Ruling Elder had some *excellent* comments about Mark Driscoll’s views on the Trinity. In his article he brings out that Driscoll’s own views on the Trinity are at best underdeveloped, specifically with reference to the eternality of the Son-ship of Christ (that the 2nd Person of the Trinity has not only eternally existed, but that He has eternally existed as the Son in relation to the Father).

He cites from Driscoll’s book:

“The whole attempt to define the eternal relations in the immanent or ontological Trinity seems misguided. First, God has given us no revelation of the nature of their eternal relations. We should follow the command of the Bible: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" and refuse to speculate. Second, the Apostles' Creed defines the Son as "begotten, not made." The point was that something begotten was of the same substance as the one who does the begetting. But the term "begotten" could never be defined with any clarity, so it was of little use. Third, begotten unavoidably implies a beginning of the one begotten. That would certainly lend support to the Arian heresy that the Son is a created being and not the Creator God. For these reasons it is best to omit the creedal terms "begotten" and "proceeds" from our definition of Trinity. Our authority is not in creeds but in Scripture.” (Mark Driscoll, Doctrine: What Christians Believe (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2010), 27-28)

While this might sound impressive to those unfamiliar with the subject, it is a fancy way of saying that for hundreds of years Christians have been too rigid in how they define the Trinity. I also need to just get this out there … I pray that Driscoll can come to terms with all that the Bible has to say about the triunity of God – including the eternality of Christ’s son-ship (John 1, as the classic example).

Driscoll has done many things over the years (I’ve been keeping tabs on his ministry since 2003), and by now it is hard for him to truly surprise me. But EP2 did surprise me. I have gotten accustomed to his cussing (which he did finally stop – to his credit), to his starting “relevant” church movements, becoming involved in the dramatic, his ability to “see things” through personal extra-Biblical revelation, and all around over the top activities. But I did not expect him to embrace into the fellowship of faith someone who denies the Trinity.

I expect more from a church elder. I expect him to have the discernment to recognize when a heretic is playing with words to try to muddle an issue. With Jakes specifically, I expected him to defend the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity – as taught in Scripture – and for him to have loved T.D. Jakes enough to share that truth with him.

Speaking about the qualifications of elders, Paul wrote:

⁷ For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, ⁸ but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, ⁹ holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. (Titus 1:7-9, NASB).

Because of his extensive knowledge of God and the gospel, I expected Mark Driscoll to “[hold] fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” This is God’s expectation of the office of elder, and the standard to which Driscoll is held.

Much more could be said (and probably has been said somewhere in the blogosphere) so I’ll conclude with this: unity should be the Christian’s goal wherever possible, but not at the expense of truth. Unity and truth work in perfect harmony together, because it is the faith that unifies the body of Christ. The Apostle Paul said it best: “²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

Rusty

Today is a Sad Day for Us All

2011-06-25T00:14:00.002-07:00

With a winning vote of 33 to 29, the Republican-led New York state legislature passed a bill legalizing gay marriage. Today is a sad day for us all. New York joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Washington D.C. as having legalized same-sex marriage, which according to the Wall Street Journal amounts to more than 10% of the U.S. population.

I called my best friend to chat and the news about New York was bound to come up. Here’s his reaction: “That’s sad, but I’m not at all surprised.” You know what, I happen to agree with him. We all saw this coming: with Cali’s Prop 8 overturned, a recent Gallup poll indicating for the first time a majority of Americans now support gay-marriage, and now rumors President Obama may officially lend his support, we saw this coming from a mile away.

Homosexual rights advocates claim legalizing same-sex marriage boils down to an issue of equality. They make the case that they are treated as sub-class citizens, lacking basic human rights … natural rights … and now compare their struggle to blacks in the 1960’s who fought to defend their civil liberties. But is this what’s really going on here?

Dr. Michael Brown rightly answers this question when he pointed out that there is a huge difference between blacks being denied access to public water fountains and forced to sit at the back of a bus, with the situation homosexuals find themselves in. Homosexuals have all the same rights before the law as heterosexuals have. What’s more, it is commonly accepted in businesses around our nation that sexual-orientation not be a means of discrimination. Finally, no respectable person is advocating for gays and lesbians to be mistreated on any level. So what “natural rights” do homosexuals claim they are denied? They would say they are denied the right to legally marry.

It is here that we have to take a step back and ask: what is marriage? Well, historically and before the law (I suppose I now need to say: the law in most states), marriage is a union between one man and one woman. How is it that the homosexual community claims they are denied equality before the law? Because they don’t have the right to get married? Actually, homosexuals have the right to marry – they can marry a member of the opposite sex. The homosexual advocate might respond, “Well that’s not what I want marriage to mean.” Oh, I see. Isn’t what you’re really after a redefinition of marriage? You want marriage to be whatever you want it to be, isn’t that right?

Though they, and other liberals, will adamantly deny it they know what kind of slippery slope this is. Because once you allow one group to redefine marriage to fit new parameters, whose to say another group doesn’t also have the right to redefine marriage into something else (i.e. polygamy, incest, bestiality)? If you think I’m off my rocker, consider that 30 years ago no one seriously considered a day when marriage could mean anything other than one man and one woman. What’s more, there are current court cases in Europe involving each of the aforementioned cases. It’s not that far of a stretch.

Please don’t misunderstand me, however, because the reason I and many other conservatives stand firmly in defense of “traditional” marriage has nothing to do with the fact that it is historical. Rather, it has everything to do with the true and living God of Biblical Christianity. The Creator of the universe also defined how human beings ought to live, including the institution of marriage:

⁴ And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, ⁵ and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6, NASB).

As Christians we believe marriage to be between one man and one woman for life. To deny God’s view of marriage is to deny the Christian faith; there is no middle ground on this one.

For all the rigamaroo of how Christians really view homosexuals, please know that we do not hate them. We do strongly disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and especially a redefining of marriage. Though it is uncommon in this day and age to disagree with someone and not hate them, nevertheless, this is the truth. We are able to separate the beliefs and behaviors from the individual, and we are required by our faith to love the individual.

Our message is an all inclusive message that everyone everywhere is born having offended the one true God, the Creator of all things. This God is all-powerful, all-knowing, unchanging, and eternal (which means there was never a time when He did not exist, in fact, He existed before time itself). Unlike human beings, who only have one personality sharing one being, God’s one Being is shared by 3 distinct Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each of these divine Persons are distinct from one another so that each can say of Himself: “I,” and of the other two, “You.” These Persons share some functions – such as Creating the Universe – and also have unique functions, which you will how they play out in what follows.

The first human beings, Adam and Eve, broke God’s law and every person after them has been born bearing their guilt. To make it even worse, each of us continues to commit our own personal offenses against the Lord as we disobey His commands (sin). The consequences of this are extremely severe because God is a perfectly just and righteous Judge. He must punish sin. This includes all kinds of sin … including the sin of homosexuality. The punishment for sin is death, both physical and spiritual. This means that not only do we die physically, but we deserve to stand before God’s throne and face judgment and sent to Hell forever. Hell is described as the lake of fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is filled with sorrow upon sorrow as God removes His restraint from all sent there to suffer the mental and physical ramifications of sin. It is a terrible terrible punishment, but it is a just punishment.

For those who might argue that they weren’t aware of God’s requirements, the Bible also tells us that God wrote His law on our hearts, to be an integral part of humankind. Therefore we have no excuse before Him because we know what is right and what is wrong.

One final note of clarification before I move on: Why is homosexuality considered an offense to God? Because God has defined human sexuality and how it is to be lawfully expressed: between one man and one woman in marriage.

Thankfully, the message of Christians doesn’t end there. In eternity past, the Father chose from the mass of sinful humanity a particular group to demonstrate His grace and mercy upon. There was nothing in this group, no work or foreseen faith, that caused the Father to choose them, but is based solely upon His good pleasure. At the predetermined time, He sent His one and only Son (Jesus Christ) to earth in the form of a baby. This is an amazing moment in history 2,000 years ago because we have the Creator entering into His Creation. The Maker of all things entering into time and space. He humbled Himself and added the nature of humanity to Himself – so now He has 2 natures: divinity and humanity. He is fully God and fully man; one divine Person with 2 natures. The Holy Spirit miraculously caused the virgin Mary to conceive Jesus as a baby. Jesus was born sinless, and perfectly obeyed God’s law for the entirety of His life without sinning.

Around the age of 30 years old, Jesus began His earthly ministry lasting 3 years. He performed miracles, healing the sick, the lame and the blind – even raising the dead (a feat he would soon overcome Himself). Jesus also proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God, which plainly meant that He would open up the doors to the forgiveness of sins. At the end of His ministry, Jesus was betrayed over to the Jewish authorities and crucified on a cross. Though he was innocent of all crimes he was murdered by His own creatures.

Jesus Christ’s death was no accident, however. In fact, it was predestined by God (Acts 4:27-28) to accomplish a specific purpose. What Jesus accomplished by dying on the cross was breathtaking: He acted as a substitute for the guilty sinners the Father chose in eternity past. This means that all the past, present and future sins of these particular sinners were paid in full in his body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). The beautiful thing about this is that rather than these sinners being found guilty before God (which they would in-and-of-themselves) and cast into Hell for all eternity, they had their sins paid for by a perfect substitute: Jesus Christ.

How does this deliverance from sin become applied to sinners? The Scriptures are clear that it is not obtained by works of any kind. It is also clear that salvation is not achieved by outweighing your bad deeds with good deeds. Forgiveness of sins is found by trusting and believing solely in the work of Jesus Christ; it is by faith alone that sinners are saved from their sins. But there is another problem: sinners cannot even believe in God. The Bible actually states that sin has affected us so much that we lack the ability to have faith in (trust) God and His truth. “Dead in our trespasses and sin” is a Biblical description of how we are born into this world. What this means is that we are spiritually dead to the things of God because of our sinful nature – which is how all of us are naturally born. While it is fairly obvious, I’ll go ahead and state the obvious: dead people can’t believe in anything. Dead people can’t do much of anything =). Therefore it is necessary for God to spiritually resurrect us, also called being “born again.” This is a work of God, and indeed, must be a work of God because dead people can’t raise themselves from the dead.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise then to say that just as God resurrects sinners to newness of spiritual life that He also grants the ability to believe in Him. After being raised to spiritual life we then have faith in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. This faith is the passive mechanism by which God imputes (or “considers to be ours”) the righteousness (goodness) of Christ to the sinner. The result is that the sinner is no longer standing before God with His own supposed righteousness, but rather as having considered to have Jesus’ righteousness as his own. The sinner is not made righteous, but is declared and considered to be righteous because of Christ. This again leaves salvation to be a work of God alone.

This declaration of God happens at a moment in time as God has predetermined for His elect people, by which He then secures and seals them with the Holy Spirit to be a guarantee of their salvation. The Holy Spirit is with believers in Christ until He returns to earth on the Last Day where He will destroy the universe with fire in judgment. On this day, every person who has ever lived will stand before the great throne of God and bow before Him, acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. It is then that sinners are divided: the righteous from the unrighteous. The unrighteous stand before God with their own works, and woefully fall short of God’s just standard. They are sent to Hell to pay for their own sins forever in the pit of darkness. The righteous are considered righteous, not because of works they had done, but because they trusted in Christ to deliver them from their sins, by which Christ’s righteousness was imputed to them. They are ushered into the new heaven and new earth where they will worship and serve God forever and ever, fellowshipping with the saints, and will always shine as trophies of God’s grace.

My message to the homosexual community is this: today is the day of salvation. Your Creator made you in such a way that the natural and lawful expression of your sexuality is in the sacred bond of marriage between one man and one woman. Turn (repent) of your wicked ways, including your homosexuality, to the true God who alone has a way of salvation. He is the Creator and He knows what is best for you; He knows you even better than you know you. He has the right to do as He wishes, because the Lord is God.

This is not a hateful message, but it is one I believe, and it is the truth. As passionate as you are of your homosexual lifestyle, I am of my Christian lifestyle. We can agree to disagree, and we can peaceably live together. But please know that if you want to talk with me further about any of this, it would be my privilege and honor to discuss these important life-changing topics with you. For these issues are nothing short of matters of life and death.

Thanks for reading,

Casey

If You’re Going to Believe in Predestination…

2011-06-19T00:13:00.001-07:00

Back when I was first converted to belief in Calvinism, I didn’t have anyone good enough in my life to lock me up during my cage-stage (by “cage-stage” I mean the period of time when new Calvinists ought to be locked in a cage because they go nuts =)). It was a topsy-turvy time for me because of how drastic Calvinism was beginning to change my life. I needed to find a more theo-centric (God-centered) church, figure out how to preach the gospel Biblically, and how to worship God in a way that was honoring to Him.
One of my dear friends, who was along for the ride but still on the fence wanted to know why I thought Calvinism was important. I reiterated some of the points above, but also added that I knew if I was going to believe in predestination I was going to believe in it completely. What I meant by that was that I’m not like those who give God the ultimate credit for good in the world but don’t also attribute to Him as the ultimate reason for the existence of evil.

As an Arminian I grew accustomed to hearing (and wound up believing) arguments that God was involved in the world but that He created human beings in such a way that He allows us to have “free will.” Now, whatever was meant by “free will” was never made clear to me, but was clear is that our decisions were free in the sense that God was not forcing us to make them. This to me was the end-all-be-all argument against Calvinism because I reasoned to myself: how can a decision be free if you are predestined to do it? And therefore God cannot ultimately be responsible for our decisions, or the existence of evil.

Why the Arminian version of me didn’t likewise conclude that God was not then responsible for good things in the world due to free will, I can only attribute to my being terribly inconsistent. But the beautiful and utterly opposite quality of Calvinism is that it is so wonderfully consistent with itself and with the Bible.
What do the Scriptures teach with regard to man’s will in relation to God’s sovereignty? For starters, man does have a real will and he makes real decisions and choices. However, man’s decisions are not autonomously made outside of the will of God, but are instead subject to His sovereign decree. Naturally this brings us to a discussion of primary and secondary causes. The Arminian says of election, for example, that God chose us by looking down through the corridors of time, and based on foreseeing who would choose Him then reacts by electing them unto salvation. For the Arminian, the first cause and ultimate reason people are elected unto salvation must be as a direct result of man’s will. The Calvinist recognizes that God alone is the Creator, and when He created time itself this includes all the actions that occur in time. Therefore the reason God has knowledge of future events is not because He is passively receiving information, but because of His eternal decree of future events. For the Calvinist the first cause and ultimate reason people are elected must be attributed to God’s will and sovereign decree.

Fundamentally, Arminianism is lacking a Biblical understanding of precisely how sin has affected mankind. Since the Fall of Adam, the whole of a man is affected by sin, most notably the will of man. The Bible describes our will as being dead, and corpses … well, they don’t decide much of anything. This is why if God left the end result up to us we would all end up apart from Him because we are unable to make positive advancements in the gospel.

Since man’s will is not autonomous, it must be subject to God’s will. One or the other must be the case. A helpful example in the Scriptures is Acts 4:27-28: “²⁷ For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸ to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB). Here we see the choices of many people having been predestined by God. God’s decree is the first cause; man’s choices are the secondary cause that actualizes the events. Let me ask you: according to the text what is the ultimate cause of Jesus dying on the cross? Well, God’s predestined purpose. Here’s another question for you: were Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and Jews all responsible for their involvement? Well, yes absolutely.

This is referred to as Compatibilist Freedom. God’s decree is the ultimate cause of everything with our choices being a part of that decree. God’s will predestined man’s decisions.

The Arminian might object: well doesn’t this mean our decisions aren’t real decisions since they’ve been predetermined? Only if for a decision to be considered a “real decision” it must be completely autonomous apart from God’s sovereignty – which is clearly not what the Bible teaches.

Doesn’t this make God the author of evil? Well, man is the one who authors, or actualizes, sin. Man is the secondary cause of human decisions. God’s decree for what would happen is the first cause.
My favorite part about this Biblical truth is that when evil things happen in the world, we know that they have meaning. We know this because God predestined them to occur, just like the death of His Son – which is the worst thing that has happened since the Creation of the world. Sometimes, God predestines things that He hates, but it is always for a purpose. While we don’t always know the full extent of why God predestines something, we know that it is for the good of those who love Him: “²⁸ And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (NASB).

And that is a comforting thought.
rustypth

Action and Paction this Summer

2011-06-17T23:32:00.001-07:00

“I’m just doing the best I can to save you.” So goes my favorite line from my favorite movie of the summer (so far). Spielberg and JJ Abram’s “Super 8” went far beyond super in what they were able to deliver. The trailers I caught beforehand left me with suspicions about what the plot was going to be, and my guess was aliens/monsters. While I won’t provide any spoilers I will say that the plot was pretty much what you’d expect from Steven Spielberg. What made this movie was the phenomenal acting, done primarily from youthful actors and actresses.

Within minutes of the opening I found myself with a strong connection to the main character, his situation, and his family. As the scope enveloped new characters the connection expanded to include his best friend, amongst his larger circle of friends. Next arrived on scene the girl, and the beginnings of young romance.

There was action, paction, humor, serious reflection, family trials, times of bonding, love, and oppression. Things that make up the world in which we live; things that we all know and care about. This is the quality that makes Spielberg and Abrams brilliant at what they do. They understand what it is to make a human connection and they communicate that connection through film in a way that make other directors downright jealous.

Other movies are at the top of my list this summer, including Thor and X-Men, but neither of these movies compare to the strong connection one feels toward the heroes of Super 8.

Thor was more enjoyable overall for me, and much more relaxing to watch. At points it had me sincerely laughing aloud – although what I found even more humorous than the movie was the woman behind me who propelled over-the-top laughter at each and every funny moment. I was laughing at the movie then at the overly involved fan sitting behind me =). It was also a surprise to me how well Natalie Portman pulled off her character. She may have bumped herself back to the top of my favorite actresses list (at least tied for first). Be warned, the plot is slightly lacking, but if you go into it looking for an easy-going experience you’re bound to love it.

X-Men was fantastic. But would you expect to hear anything else from someone who grew up watching the cartoons? Compared to Thor, it took a lot more work for me to watch this film, probably because I am so familiar with all the characters and plotline. The choice of James McElroy as Xavier was a terrific match. Professor X and Magneto’s friendship was portrayed extraordinarily, which made their inevitable separation that much more meaningful. The movie left me wanting more, and I am counting down the years until the next installment to this X-Men reboot series.

Do yourself a favor though, if you have yet to see Super 8, see this before the rest of the summer blockbusters. You won’t regret it.

Thanks for reading,

rustypth

All So One Person Isn’t Offended

2011-06-04T00:08:00.003-07:00

My gorgeous wife pointed me to THIS article yesterday and we were both stunned. It’s graduation season for high schools across the country and one set of parents decided to file a lawsuit against a Texas school district to prohibit public mention by students of any religious discussion. The Judge, to my utter dismay, ruled that students are forbidden from using religious words including “prayer,” “amen” and “bow their heads.”

Why did the Schultz family go to such great lengths to make this fuss? In the words of the judge: so the parents and their son would avoid “irreparable harm.”

I would ask the reader to please open up the faculties of your mind and examine the goal of the Schultz family, the ruling of this federal judge, and then ask yourself: does this make sense? What is it the Schultz’s are trying to accomplish in actuality? Isn’t it the suppression of any public expression of religious belief and conviction? Do they believe they have a unique right to not be offended? Why suppress the rights of others to express themselves? The answer to the last question, ladies and gentlemen, is the core of this debate.

There have always been people who wish to silence religious opinions, especially those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as the only Savior of sinners. In fact, rather than be surprised by this reaction, we should be prepared for it. Doesn’t the Bible describe dead sinners as “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18, NASB)? Their suppression … their holding down of God’s truth is not done innocently. They know full well that which is known about God because He made it plain to them (Romans 1:19). Therefore we are left with only one possible conclusion: their suppression of the gospel is purposeful and forceful.

Because people like the Schultz’s exist I can’t help myself but give constant thanks to the triune God in heaven for allowing us the privilege of the first amendment of the United States Constitution, which makes clear our right to say things people disagree with. No doubt there are creative and gifted minds at work to undermine the First Amendment – as evidenced by the Schultz family and various unjust judges – but it will take a lot of effort to explain away this powerful right granted to us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What has amazed me in all of this is the arrogance and pride that is naturally associated with the Schultz’s lawsuit. The only way they can justify taking away the God-given right of freedom of speech is if they truly believe they have a special right not to be offended. It is as though they believe they are superior in some way to religious people – especially towards Christians. How else can they make a case forbidding student citizens from freely expressing their own beliefs?

One wonderful thing the Enlightenment brought about was the recognition that since all people are created in the image of God and are equal to one another, they therefore have basic rights before one another [although I consent this idea was not always expressed or defended the way I now do].

Knowing the evil intent that exists within many in our own free nation, we need to be prepared for the reality that our rights may be taken away from us. On that day we will then answer the Schultz family and the unjust judge, like Peter and the Apostles: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In the meantime, may the Lord grant to us grace to act as salt and light to preach the gospel to a lost and dying world.

Thanks for reading,

Case

Grammar. And verily, much w00tage did thus fill the land =)

2011-05-13T22:07:00.002-07:00

Have you ever begun reading a book expecting it to be about one specific topic only to quickly discover that it was about … dare I use this word … a plethora of topics? I’m currently reading through Opening Scripture by Patrick Fairbairn, and well, I guess I thought it was going to be a simple (?) book about Biblical hermeneutics. Boy o boy was I mistaken. The subtitle should have given it away, had I bothered to read it: “A Hermeneutical Manual Introducing the Exegetical Study of the New Testament.” I promise you the first thought to enter my head was along the lines of: “Whoa baby, what exactly did I get myself into here?” *grin* But, even after cutting my way through the forest of information within the first 60 pages, I find myself paying special attention to things on every page.

For example, page 1 has this fantastic comment: “[The Reformers] proceeded on the sound maxim of Melancthon, that Scripture cannot be understood theologically, unless it has been already understood grammatically.” I paused reading, as I frequently do, and had to share this with my wife. We talked about this for a couple of minutes, and I have continued to think on this throughout the week. It ended up being more profound than I initially realized – this is the kind of statement that seems obvious but needs to be stated nonetheless. Without a proper handling of the grammar of Scripture theology cannot be properly determined.

I know that throwing around terms like “grammar” and how it leads to proper “theology” aren’t attractive terms to most people. And I can almost hear opponents making their case: “Come on, Case. Are you telling me that when I study God’s Word I need to consider things like grammar and … syntax to rightly interpret???” I respond: “Absolutely, yes.”

One pet verse that I began to cherish more and more as I encountered Calvinists and their arguments was 2 Peter 3:9b, “…not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (NASB). “See,” I said, “God doesn’t wish for any to perish. God loves everyone, sent Jesus to die for everyone, and it is up to us to accept the free gift…” Or so goes the argument I presented as an Arminian. The problem with this is that I paid no attention to the grammar of the text. Rather than trying to figure out who the “any” and “all” are, I inserted my own conclusions onto the text.

A simple reading of the entire chapter will answer the question of who the “any” and “all” are that Peter refers to. It’s a matter of following the pronouns. What the reader will notice is that Peter is talking about two groups in this chapter. The first group are Christians referred to as: “beloved” (verse 1), “you” (verse 1), “your” (verse 1), “you” (verse 2), “your” (verse 2). The second group is introduced in verse 3 and following: “mockers” (verse 3), “their” (verse 3), “their” (verse 3), “they” (verse 5), “their” (verse 5), “ungodly men” (verse 7).

Peter transitions back to the first group in verse 8, and you will also notice the pronouns change as well: “your” (verse 8), “beloved” (verse 8), “you” (verse 9).

Why go through all this work of following the pronouns and other descriptive terms to discover which group Peter is talking about? Because in verse 9 we are trying to rightly understand who the “any” and “all” refer to. The chapter begins by addressing Christians, then switches to mockers/unbelievers, and then switches back to Christians by the time we arrive at verses 8 and 9. To be more specific, verse 9 couldn’t be more clear by referring to the “you” of this chapter: “⁹The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (NASB). Who are the “any” and “all”? They are the “you” of verse 9, and in verses 1 and 2.

As an Arminian I was able to rip this verse out of its context. Without looking at the grammar and syntax I carelessly abused this text and applied a meaning foreign to the text. Grammar really does matter.Words really do have meaning. Pronouns too.

Thanks for reading,

Casey of Basey

Jesus taught us to pray this way

2011-05-07T23:26:00.001-07:00

The moment I know of a book that sounds remotely interesting to me I want to buy it and put it on my bookshelf. It takes active restraint to be patient enough to finish what I am currently reading (or at least getting close to finishing) before I purchase the next book in my never-ending que. But sometimes I am not always able to resist the urge and therefore some books have sat on the shelf for years without being opened. One of these books I was finally able to get to: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – Relationships, Roles, and Relevance by Bruce A. Ware. After The Forgotten Trinity I figured this book would be a walk in the park, but I took away quite a few points especially in practically applying the Trinity to my life.

In fact, I didn’t make it too far in the read before I came face to face with something I hadn’t really considered before in-depth. I’d like to provide a lengthier-than-usual citation, but it is well-worth the read:

“Recall for a moment the opening line of Jesus’ instruction regarding how we should pray. “Pray then like this,” he said. “Our Father in heaven, hallowed by your name.” May I suggest something both clear and radical? If Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, then we ought to do this. For one reason or another, we sometimes follow a different practice. We may encourage our children, especially to open their prayers with, “Dear Jesus,” despite the fact that Jesus said to pray “Our Father in heaven…” Perhaps we do not think about prayer as we should because we do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. As Jesus taught us, we should pray to the Father through the Son. Jesus Christ is the mediator. He is the one through whom we address the Father. He is the one who brings us access to the Father. He is the one who brings us access to the Father. Our prayers bring spiritual benefit only when we pray in his name. And prayers that bring fruit in the kingdom are those offered in the power of the Spirit. We pray as the Spirit prompts and urges us to pray. So prayer rightly understood-Christian prayer-is prayer to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. To pray aright, we need a deep appreciation for the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Pg. 18).

My experience growing up was filled with Christians I looked up to who many of the time would begin prayer by first addressing Jesus. I quickly adopted the same practice. What I found for myself was that this practice allows one to easily forget about the Father – at least in remembering to address Him first, or at all. Looking back, I did vividly remember when a good friend of mine would pray a little differently: “Father, we come to You through Jesus, …” I thought this was the strangest thing I had ever heard because everyone I knew prayed primarily to the Son.

Bruce Ware makes an excellent point in his book that since Jesus taught us to begin our prayers by addressing the Father, we ought to first address the Father in our prayers. By this, I don’t think he means that we can’t address Jesus and the Holy Spirit in prayer because they are both divine Persons, sharing the one Being of God. What Ware is getting at is that the relationships and roles of the three divine Persons of God help us in how we ought to pray to each of the Persons and in what order. Scripture instructs us that the Father receives ultimate glory and is at the forefront of our attention. This is expressed even in prayer, by which we gain access to Him through the Son. Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and men, especially in prayer. Finally, we do this through the power of the Holy Spirit who guarantees our salvation and keeps us until the Day of Christ Jesus.

One would only come to this understanding by recognizing the truths of the Trinity as taught in the New Testament. The Apostles and prophets of the New Testament wrote about the one true God, who made Himself known as three distinct Persons. Three Persons, yet one true Being … and this not to be self-contradictory. The Trinity was one of the presuppositions plainly written throughout the New Testament. So many Christians know that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God, and yet are distinct Persons. But they could not explain the Trinity to a non-Trinitarian to save their life. And that’s okay – we’re all a work in progress. But, one of the wonderful blessings of knowing the doctrine of the Trinity is that this is how God has revealed Himself, and God wants His people to know Him. Accurate information about the true and living God has direct impact on all of life, even on every day things like prayer.

Wrapping up, if you find yourself unfamiliar with what the Trinity really is I would like to purposefully recommend the two books I previously mentioned to help you in your understanding of God. I didn’t feel like I had a good understanding of the Trinity until I read James White’s The Forgotten Trinity. Please read this book. Next, I would recommend Bruce Ware’s book as well.

²⁵Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, ²⁶but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; ²⁷to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 16:26-27, NASB).

As always, thanks for visiting my little corner of cyberspace,

Casey

God is Love

2011-04-29T23:52:00.001-07:00

“Doesn’t the Bible say that God is love? Wouldn’t this mean that God must love everybody equally?”

Or so the philosophy of Arminianism would have us believe. The short response is that while God is love (1 John 4:8) this is not His only attribute. God is also a God of justice, holiness and wrath. The Arminian arrives at his conclusion by over-emphasizing the love of God to the exclusion of His other characteristics.

“⁹For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9, NASB). These words really hit home for me when I consider my upbringing in an Arminian and very anti-Calvinistic church environment. Now looking back, I see some of God’s wisdom in allowing me to have that experience. For one thing, I am better able to approach my Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ to help them understand more of God’s truth. Second, I now recognize the Lord’s complete rulership over all things, including salvation, and the great impact this can have on the Christian life. For this reason I believe it is important to address even the concerns raised by our Arminian friends.

Starting off, is God required to love everybody exactly the same? The Scriptures say this, “¹³Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Romans 9:13, NASB). God loved Jacob but hated Esau. My initial question to the Arminian is this: In light of the fact that God loved Jacob but hated Esau how can you say God is required to love everyone equally?

On another level, let’s consider ourselves – God’s creatures – who are made in the image of God. We have the ability to express different kinds of love. For example, I love my wife differently than I love my friends. And I love my parent’s dogs differently than I love my computer. I also love the triune God above everyone and everything else. Are we really to believe that God’s love is less expressive than His own creatures’ ability to love people/things differently? If so, doesn’t this reduce God to a level below His own creatures?

But the Scriptures seem to also express that the Lord is not only a God of love. He is also a God of hate. God hates sin, yes, but the Bible also says that God hates sinners. I’ve already cited the Lord hating Esau, but think on Psalm 5:5, “ ⁵The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.” (NASB). At this point a question naturally arises in the heart of man: is God unjust? Paul actually addresses this subject immediately after stating that God loved Jacob but hated Esau: “¹⁴What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” (Romans 9:14, NASB). Even though the Lord loves some and hates others He is not unjust.

I was reminded recently that God is not described as “love, love, love” – three times in a row – in the Scriptures. Rather, He is called “holy, holy, holy” (Isaiah 6:3). The reason this is important is because the author is emphatically making a point about one of the Lord’s attributes: His holiness; His other-ness. God is utterly unique in His divine majesty, and nothing can be compared to Him. This is why when we consider our own sinfulness in light of God’s holiness we are left with despair like the prophet Isaiah, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5, NASB). Our sin and our guilt has offended God infinitely beyond our understanding because we have sinned against an infinite Being, and therefore, our punishment must be terrible indeed.

Therefore, to say that God is required to love everybody the same is altogether the wrong starting point. God is not under any obligation to love anyone, and it is for this reason that we ought to be AMAZED that He has decided to love any at all. We ought not to be distressed that He did not love Esau, but rather our breath should be taken away that He decided to love Jacob! Especially in light of the fact that God’s decision to love one and hate the other was not based on anything in them! “¹⁰And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; ¹¹for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,” (Romans 9:10-11, NASB). This is a humbling truth, but it also magnifies the triumphant grace of our God who does not depend on the will of man (Romans 9:16).

Thanks for reading,

Case of Base

The Greatest Compliment I Have Ever Received

2011-04-23T07:21:00.001-07:00

After two unreturned phone calls from a week ago I decided to leave a final message explaining that this would be my last attempt to get in touch with him. Right as the beep to the voicemail clicked over I began receiving a call. It was Josh … the Jehovah’s Witness I met with three times over the past couple weeks. We said our awkward “hello’s” and I quickly moved on to explain that I wasn’t intending to call for the third time in a row, but first wanted to make sure he was okay, and second to give him a way out in case he didn’t want to continue meeting/talking.

Being the polite guy that he is, he told me he thought it would be best if we stopped meeting because we are both firmly set in our beliefs. I tried to respond graciously and told him that I only want to continue our discussions if he is comfortable. But I couldn’t resist adding how much I appreciated talking with him, and the respect that I have for him for the willingness to examine his beliefs in light of Scripture. I also mentioned that our discussions were the highlight of my week each week, and that he has been the topic of discussion with my family and friends.

He responded by giving me similar feedback, and chuckled as he told me he thinks I would make a great Jehovah’s Witness. We both laughed. “Seriously though,” he said, “half of being a Witness is door to door work, and you are already so passionate about your faith that you are precisely the kind of laborer we need.”

Because I didn’t want to keep him I tried to wrap up the convo by leaving an open invitation if he ever wanted to stop by. “You are always welcome in my house,” I told him, “just gimme a call and I will make time for you.” At this point in the phone call I could honestly tell that he did want to continue meeting, which leaves me to wonder what’s going on behind the scenes – there could be any number of factors involved: his wife, friends at church, his church leadership.

Somehow I felt comfortable enough to throw in a quick challenge to him (especially if I may not see him again) to look into some of the examples I showed him in the New Testament that refer to Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah. Specifically I brought up Hebrews 1:10-12, where the author attributes the text from Psalm 102 to Jesus, and also John 12 where John says that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory in his Isaiah 6 vision. “Both of these are good points,” Josh said, “and I promise I will research these and all the issues we talked about … you know what, I do want to meet with you at some point in the future.”

And that settled that. Praise be to God. We don’t have a date, but I told him to call me when he is available to meet and we’ll make it happen.

Josh then said something that I really took to heart, “No one has ever explained the Trinity to me like you have. I really appreciate the time we’ve already spent talking about who Jehovah is.” This is by far the greatest compliment I have ever received. I told him that the reason I care so much about the Trinity is the same reason he cares about his perspective that Jehovah is a unipersonal being. I then added, “Like I said when we met, the reason I want to share my faith is primarily because I believe God is honored in the proclamation of His truth, and also because I care about unbelievers. I want you, Josh, to believe the truth because I care about you and want you to come to the true Christ in faith so that you will not pay for your sins in Hell for all eternity.”

Definitely caught him off-guard with that one. But he sincerely told me he appreciated my heartfelt emotions towards him. My wife suggested that we spend extra time praying for Josh, that the triune Lord of majesty might open up his heart to the truth and that He would be granted repentance unto life. My God can save anyone. Please, Lord, show mercy to my friend Josh – if it be Your will.

Thanks for reading,

Casey

Calvinism: An Introduction to an Introduction

2011-04-23T00:21:00.002-07:00

I grew up in a church environment where Calvinism was only whispered about. It was a deeply frowned upon doctrine in my circle, and the pastors would quickly pay you too much attention if you even expressed interest in researching the subject. It didn’t take too long before I developed a staunch and fervent attitude against Calvinism. There was only one Calvinistic church that I was aware of, and I honestly hated that people were flocking there in droves once they embraced the teachings of Calvinism. Already in this paragraph there are more mentions of the term “Calvinism” than I had heard unashamedly and openly at church by the time I was 18 =).

For those who knew me between the ages of 16 and 19 must think it is the irony of ironies that I am now a firm believer in the doctrine of Calvinism because I was once utterly opposed to it. Whenever I meet someone who is an Arminian and reacts a little too surprised at my Calvinistic beliefs I am able to sympathize with them because I was once there in their shoes. I know what it is wonder how anyone could believe something so different. I know what questions pop into your mind: “Doesn’t God love the whole world?” … “What about free will?” … “Why would God not choose to save everyone?” … “If God has ordained all things why bother preaching the gospel?” … and other deserving questions. What I want to say to folks when I am asked these kinds of questions is this: These are excellent questions, and there are excellent answers.

One of my favorite things about the Christian faith is the clarity of the truths of Scripture. Predestination, God’s sovereignty, His rulership over all things – including salvation, God’s freedom to do as He pleases, His holiness and justice, and how He always accomplishes His ordained will are many of the subjects that need to be addressed while entering into a study of Calvinism. The idea that there are only “five points” is a bit misleading, and in fact the reason there were five points of Calvinism produced was to respond to the Arminians making their case in the seventeenth century to the churches in England with their five points.

This entry will not attempt to respond to key verses believed to teach Arminianism (some of which include: John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 23:37). You can bet that I will write a lil’ somethin on these in the near future =). What I will attempt to do is briefly introduce what Calvinism is accompanied by some Scriptural support. This will not be exhaustive and will not respond to all questions that may arise. But please ask if you have a particular question and I’d be happy to address it.

Even though it is overly simplistic, but because this is really an introduction I will utilize the “TULIP” acronym to summarize Calvinism, followed by a compare/contrast with Arminianism which will include some Scriptural support.

T – Total Depravity. Man is so affected by sin that he is unable to make positive advancements towards God in faith. This does not mean that men are as bad as they can be, because God’s common grace restrains the evil that we want to do. However, sin reaches to all aspects of man, even touching his will. In fact, Scripture refers to men as being “dead in our trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1), and their “mind set on the flesh [being] hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (Romans 8:7). Our Lord Christ also says of man’s will, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). Men are dead in sin, unable to subject themselves to the law of God, and unable to come to Christ in faith.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that men have libertarian free will. Sin has not affected men to the extent that they are unable to come to Christ in faith. Men are born with an inherent ability to accept or reject God’s truth.

U – Unconditional Election. God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rests solely on His sovereign will. This was not based on anything within men, including any foreseen response or act on their part. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation (Steele and Thomas). The Apostle Paul wrote, “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). Jesus also says, ”All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27). God choice of the elect before the foundation of the world is solely based upon the Father’s choosing. There is no mention of God responding to foreseen knowledge of men choosing Him.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that God’s choice was based upon God’s foreseeing who would freely respond to the gospel in faith.

L – Limited Atonement (also referred to as “Definite Atonement” and “Particular Redemption”). Christ’s redeeming work was meant to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary atonement for all their sins in which he paid for particular sins and particular sinners on the cross (Steele and Thomas). Peter says that Christ actually “bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Peter 2:24). The angel said to Joseph, “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus ,for He will save His people from their sins.” Jesus actually bore the sins of His people on the cross. They were paid for in full, and therefore will save His people from their sins.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that Christ’s redeeming work was meant to save every individual, but did not actually save anyone. His death was not a substitutionary atonement but is theoretical, being applied only when men choose to receive it.

I – Irresistible Grace (also called “Efficacious grace”). In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to all men individually, the Holy Spirit extends to God’s elect a special inward call that will result in their coming to Christ in faith. When the Holy Spirit draws someone to the Lord he always comes. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended (Steele and Thomas). Paul in Ephesians writes this, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4-6). Earlier in this chapter the Apostle calls them dead sinners, but here explains why it is that some come to Christ in faith: God made us alive with Christ. We were dead, but God made us alive.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that God’s inward call is given to all who outwardly hear the gospel. The Spirit’s call can be resisted by the will of man. Therefore, the Spirit’s call is often overpowered by man, and is not invincible (Steele and Thomas).

P – Perseverance of the Saints (also referred to as “Preservation of the Saints”). All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end (Steele and Thomas). God began the work of salvation and He is the one that finishes it. Sometimes called the Golden Chain of Redemption, the beautiful text of Romans 8:28-30 shows the work of God in the life of the believer linked together in an unbroken chain of events, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called; He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Those whom He foreknew (which, throughout the Bible, the verb ‘to know’ always refers to God’s special love directed towards His people) He predestined, called, justified and … glorified. It is an unbroken chain of events that will take place. As you continue to the end of the chapter, Paul says we are more than conquerors because of God’s power in salvation. What a great God we have to provide such a secure salvation! Truly, salvation is of the Lord!

By contract, Arminianism teaches that since salvation is contingent upon man choosing or rejecting salvation he may lose his salvation. I should say that not all present-day Arminians believe this – I didn’t when I was one. But the question needs to be asked of the Arminian: if you enter salvation by your choice, why would you not have the choice to abandon that salvation?

Because this is a lot of information to get started in a study on the subject of Calvinism, I’ll try to wrap this up. For further study, I would highly recommend The Five Points of Calvinism by Steele and Thomas, and The Sovereign Grace of God by Dr. James R. White. Both are excellent reads and are simple enough to understand and work through.

If you are wondering if the study of Calvinism versus Arminianism is a worthwhile endeavor, please allow me to offer a few thoughts. I believe that while it is not essential to salvation, it is nevertheless extremely important to the believer. What is at stake is a theocentric (God-centered) gospel versus a anthropocentric (man-centered) gospel. Is God able to save? Or does God require the cooperation of man? And to the Arminian who may challenge my line of questioning by asking me: “Well, why can’t God choose to give man free will?” I would respond by pointing out that were that the case God’s ordained will is not accomplished as the Bible declares that it is and will be.

The Lord is a mighty God, and He accomplishes His purpose. And again I point to that beautiful text in Romans 8, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God. All things. What things? Paul later mentions those powers who are against Christians, and then concludes the chapter by including literally everything. The gospel is good news because sinners are so corrupted by sin that we will not and cannot choose to believe in Christ. But He has mercy on some and chose them before the foundation of the world – not based on anything in them – it is by grace alone. Christ secured their salvation by accomplishing salvation on the cross. The Lord draws His people unto Himself at the appointed time, and then He continues to work within them so that they will not fall away from the truth.

From beginning to end, salvation is of the Lord. He is the author and finisher of our faith. Praise be to such a triune God as ours!

Thanks for reading,

Casey

Should you believe in the Trinity?

2011-04-17T00:36:00.001-07:00

There are moments that forever stand out in your mind. For me, they are a bunch of “firsts.” I remember the first time I saw my wife, the first time I went swing dancing, and my first real cup of coffee – courtesy of Eli. Last night was another one of these stand-alone moments as I read the Watchtower publication Should You Believe in the Trinity?, given to me by the Jehovah’s Witness I’m talking with.

I had just finished doing up my usual cup of coffee – a tall, half inch of non-fat milk, one equal, well stirred – and claimed a comfy seat outside Starbucks. I managed to complete the magazine in that sitting, and I’m certain I scared the little old ladies sitting nearby as I furiously annotated in the margins with a look of concern on my face. What I discovered within the brief 31 page magazine were a series of poorly constructed arguments, misrepresentations and falsehoods in an attempt to disprove the Trinity.

“Why should a subject like this be of any more than passing interest? Because Jesus himself said: “Eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” So our entire future hinges on our knowing the true nature of God, and that means getting to the root of the Trinity controversy. Therefore, why not examine it for yourself?” (Page 3). My annotation here summarizes exactly what I was thinking as I finished this: “Amen!” Truly, there is no greater subject of difference between Christianity and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Oddly enough, the Watchtower publication attempts to unravel the foundation of the Trinity by claiming it is too confusing to understand, and since God is not a God of confusion it must be untrue. “However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: “God is not a God of confusion.”” (Page 5). Aside from the fact that the citation of 1 Corinthians 14:33 is about proper use of spiritual gifts in the church, the doctrine of the Trinity is comprehensible. Josh (my Jehovah’s witness friend) has argued that he thinks it is confusing because he can’t imagine what it is like to exist as a trinity. My response to him was that simply because we can’t relate to God in all of His attributes – especially about His very nature – does not disprove that this is how God actually exists. There are many attributes about God that we cannot fully relate to: his omnipresence, omniscience, and his complete power. Nevertheless, these unrelatable attributes are true of God. So then, if the Lord has revealed that He is only one Being, shared by three distinct coequal and coeternal Persons, then the Trinity is true … even though we can’t relate to God in this way.

When and how the doctrine of the Trinity developed becomes the next focus. In a nut shell, it is argued that early Christians borrowed from pagan religious sources to shape their understanding of God. Examples include the Egyptian gods Horus, Osiris and Isis and the Babylonian gods Ishtar, Sin and Shamash. It was at this point that I set the magazine down on the table and had to try not to look as angry as I felt. The reason I was so bothered is because the idea that the polytheistic world was adopted by Christians flies in the face of the absolute monotheism of the Bible. The most essential truth of Judaism and Christianity is the firm belief in the existence of one true God. If I may add one further point, because other polytheistic religions had a “set” of three gods does not even begin to compare with the absolute monotheism of Christianity.

“When Jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: “Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.” To whom was he praying? To a part of himself? No, he was praying to someone entirely separate, his father, God, whose will was superior and could be different from his own, the only One able to “remove this cup.” (Page 18). Words like this sound entirely strange to Trinitarian ears because we recognize that the Father and the Son are different persons. What is surprising is that here the Watchtower does not seem to understand that Trinitarians do believe that. When I read the question, “To whom was he praying? To a part of himself?” I thought to myself: this is either a dishonest question or one made out of ignorance. One or the other.

Dishonesty or ignorance? The entire magazine could be easily refuted by a Trinitarian familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity. The simple understanding that difference in function does not mean inferiority in nature. In other words, because the Father and the Son have some distinct roles does not mean one has an inferior nature. All three of the divine Persons share the one Being of God.

If you have could use some help in further understanding and explaining the Trinity I would highly recommend Dr. James R. White’s The Forgotten Trinity, purchasable through http://www.aomin.org. Speaking of “firsts,” the first time I read James’ book I remember thinking to myself, “Oh that’s what the Trinity is…”

Thanks for reading,

Casey

My God can save anybody

2011-04-14T21:52:00.001-07:00

“It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.” (1 Timothy 1:15, NASB).

I’m still getting used to the fact that on Tuesday nights the Lord has brought some close friends back into my life. These are guys that I spent years with studying the Scriptures, praying, worshipping at church, evangelizing the lost, and having a good time. I spent (and still spend) a lot of time praying for them on my own, and thinking about their spiritual well-being. Which is why I was delighted the night I received a text from Brett inviting me to a Bible study they were having, and I’ve been joining them ever since.

We’re now working through 1 Timothy, and this verse in chapter one seems especially relevant to me in light of the week-long Easter Pageant put on by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in Mesa, AZ. Not only is the pageant Monday through Friday the week of Easter, but also in Spanish the week prior! While I don’t have current statistics about how many Latter-day Saints will attend during Easter week, in years past it was estimated to be around 80,000. That’s a lot of folks each night at the Pageant!

If you’ve spent more than a few years witnessing to the LDS people you have noticed some not so subtle changes in their knowledge (rather, their lack of knowledge) of their own Church’s theology and doctrine. Many people have become apathetic in their approach towards non-Mormons, even to the point where they have no desire to engage in a discussion of our differences.

By God’s grace, the King James Onlyist sign-holders haven’t made a huge appearance for the past two or three years, probably because it isn’t as “exciting” for them. I see this as a direct answer to prayer because frankly, they were nothing but a horrible distraction – even though they opened up many opportunities with the Latter-day Saints along the lines of: “I’m not one of the hateful sign-holders yelling at you…”

… lol …

Around this time of year I usually re-read my elder James’ book Is the Mormon My Brother? If you have not had a chance to read it, please do. Also, his Letters to a Mormon Elder is another must-read – please take this as my official recommendation to the reader. I have read many of the prolific authors about Mormonism, but these two works by Dr. James White offers one of the most succinct and balanced presentations I have come across thus far. “Letters” is a compilation of fictitious letters between James and two Mormon elders, and is most useful to use as a reference for specific topics that will come up in conversations with the Latter-day Saints. Is the Mormon My Brother? is a systematic presentation meant to fairly explain Mormon theology using their own sources. What I love about this book is the explanation about how Mormons prioritize their sources of authority.

Why do I spend time each year at the Mormon Easter pageant trying to talk with the Latter-day Saints? When I was in high school one of my pastors said to me, “I don’t know why you bother witnessing to Mormons when there are so many people who are ready and willing to believe in Jesus…” This bothered me. This bothered me a lot. I remember replying to him, “My God can save anybody.” At the root of my thinking was theology. I know that at the core of man he is unwilling and unable to believe in the gospel: “⁴⁴No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44, NASB). No one can come; no one is able to come. Man actually lacks the ability to come to Christ in faith. It takes the drawing of the Father for one’s heart to be changed. To those who might argue that Christ draws everyone equally, I will point out to you the result of the drawing of the father: they are raised up on the last day. In other words, no one can come unless they are drawn; and those who are drawn will be raised on the last day.

Keeping this text in mind, how does this apply to the Latter-day Saints? Straightforwardly (is that even a word? It is now! LOL), since no one is able to come to Christ because of their deadness in sin, and salvation is a result of the Father’s drawing to Christ, I preach the gospel trusting that God will save whom He wills to save.

The ruler of all universe can even save those who happen to agree with Joseph Smith: “Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”

My God can save anybody. He does not just save those who appear to be more likely to convert to the truth. He can even deliver polytheists like the Latter-day Saints. The Spirit goes where He wills, and no one knows who the Lord will choose to save. This is why I preach the gospel to all men. And so we will proclaim the gospel to the Mormon people, with love and respect, and pray that while we plant and water seeds, it is God who makes it grow – if He wills to do so.

Alpha and Omega Ministries would appreciate your prayers as we go out there Easter week. Thanks for reading,

Rusty

God desires all men to be saved

2011-04-09T00:58:00.002-07:00

All faithful Christians agree with this. The question then becomes: who is the “all men” that God desires to be saved? Is it every person who ever lived or ever will live individually, or is it God’s elect people? The answer is an important difference between Calvinists and Arminians. I recently had the opportunity to teach through this passage at a Bible study and decided it would be worthwhile to address this issue. But first, here is the text:

“¹First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, ²for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. ³This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁵For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ⁶who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.” (1 Timothy 2:1-6, NASB).

Starting off, I think it is important to notice that the purpose of this passage was not to respond to the Calvinism versus Arminianism controversy. However, clarification is needed because of the oft-misunderstood verse 4. The Arminian understanding of the text goes something like this: “God desires all men individually to be saved. What else could be meant by ‘all men’?” Honestly, I know exactly where the Arminian is coming from, having once held this belief myself.

Taking a closer look at the context, the “all men” of verse 4 is previously defined for us when Paul urges that prayers be made on behalf of “all men” in verses 1-2. But as Dr. James White points out in his book, The Potter’s Freedom, it wasn’t the Apostle’s point to have the Christians open up the phone book and begin praying for each individual listed. For as you continue reading in the very next clause he defines who the “all men” refers to: “for kings and all who are in authority.” Not only is God a Savior of the slave, the poor and destitute, but also of rulers. The point of Paul is that God saves all classes of men, which is precisely what kings and those in authority are.

Now wait just a minute … couldn’t Paul be referring to two separate groups here? The “all men” could refer to every individual, and then a second group made up of kings and those in authority. Is this a possibility? Well, apart from the fact that Paul defines who the “all men” are in the following clause, he then provides us with the reason for offering up prayers for this group: “so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” Remember that the Christians at that time were living under intense persecution from the Jews and Roman authorities. For one thing, they needed urging to pray for those who were persecuting them so they might be saved, but also so they might be able to live peacefully.

Paul continues his discussion in verse 4: “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Who are the “all men” of verse 4? The same group in verses 1-2: different kinds and classes of men. This also makes perfect sense with the theology of Paul as we finish up this section where Christ’s mediatorship is connected to the “all men” along with Christ’s ransom sacrifice. Along the same lines, John writes in Revelation that Christ purchased with His blood “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).

The question needs to be asked of the Arminian: if the “all men” of verse 4 refers to all men individually, does this mean that Christ’s ransom and mediatorship are only theoretical in nature, or did Christ accomplish His work on the cross? In other words, was Christ’s work on the cross a substitutionary atonement for all kinds and classes of men – whereby He actually bore the sins of His people in His body on the cross – or was it only a theoretical atonement?

Right off the bat, two key passages come to mind that address the purpose and accomplishment of Christ’s atoning work. 1 Peter 2:24, “²⁴and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” Did Christ really bear sins in His body on the cross, or was this theoretical depending on the future acceptance or rejection of Him? Next, Matthew 1:21, “²¹"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."” Will Jesus save His people from their sins, or is His work dependent upon the will of the creature? Or again, will or won’t Jesus save His people from their sins? I would submit to the Arminian that Christ really did bear particular sins in His body on the cross, that those sins were atoned for, and that there is no doubt that Christ will accomplish the mission He set out to do – as is plainly taught here in the Scriptures.

Someone might be wondering to himself if it is beneficial to spend time over a controversial interpretation of Scripture like 1 Timothy 2:4. The reason I do believe this is vital is because the real issue is over God’s freedom in salvation over against a man-centered perspective of the gospel with God’s work being dependent on the will of the creature. Said another way, Jesus Christ is either a powerful Savior who accomplishes His will, or one who tries but fails to save and is left eternally disappointed with the outcome.

Thanks for reading,

Rusty

An Unexpected Turn of Events

2011-04-04T07:00:00.001-07:00

Eleven o’clock came and went. Eleven fifteen. By eleven thirty I was beginning to think they weren’t coming. Scott and I made plans to meet up with the ladies and head out to lunch, but first I decided to give Josh, the Jehovah’s Witness, a call. Turns out he was on his way to a funeral and forgot to give me a call, which was a relief because rather than purposefully blowing us off he apologized for forgetting to call me to reschedule. He’ll be following up with me sometime in the next few days for our rescheduled third meeting.

My plan is still relatively the same: again go over Hebrews 1:10-12 (and hopefully hear some sort of response), a verse they will present that allegedly shows the “inferiority” of Christ to the Father – and our response, and if there’s time I’d like to visit John 12:34-41.

This is another important text because a citation from Isaiah 6 is provided by John followed by an apostolic interpretation that the glory of the one Isaiah saw in his vision was Christ’s glory: “These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of him” (John 12:41, NASB). The other reason this is a great verse to show these two JW’s is because they will likely not have a prepared response to it, which is an added bonus in dealing with anyone a part of a religious system bent on controlling what information is reaching her membership.

What I am aiming for in all this is that while they are not allowed to take and read anything I give to them (though it is the irony of ironies that they go door to door distributing the Watchtower’s literature) they will have with them always one or two texts that clearly refer to Jesus as Yahweh (Jehovah). I pray that this troubles their hearts often until they find rest in the triune Lord found in the Scriptures.

May the true and living God be pleased to grant to them saving grace,

Rusty

Everything I have seen confirms my worst fears

2011-04-03T21:29:00.001-07:00

So reads the back cover of Sean Williams’ Star Wars: The Old Republic – Fatal Alliance … I’ll let the reader discover by whom this was said and when =). This is the first in a book series meant to lead up to the highly anticipated mmorpg, Star Wars: The Old Republic, being developed by BioWare. I believe it was back in 2008 sometime while looking around the Interwebz’ landscape that I stumbled across an announcement for a new Star Wars mmo. There was no release date, but I immediately told my best bud, along with some other buddies. Well, we are presently in 2011 and while we don’t have a precise release date we have been told it will be sometime in the year.

To make things even more exciting, this year has seen the release of the game trailer and a whole host of actual gameplay videos. Check out the site if you’re interested: http://www.swtor.com.

Getting back to Fatal Alliance it really was an enjoyable read. As I usually do, I switch it up between fiction and non-fiction to keep things interesting. This was a typical Star Wars novel filled with some decent character development involving Jedi, Sith, Smugglers, troopers, space battles, ground assaults and everything else you’d come to expect in a galaxy a long time ago, far, far away. Already on order is the sequel in this series titled, Deceived, and will bring me one step closer to the storyline of SWTOR. Cannot wait. Simply cannot wait.

Thanks for reading,

Rusty

8 “But of the Son He says,” … 10 “And,” …

2011-03-27T00:11:00.001-07:00

"Without any disrespect, some of the more important areas we differ in our views about God are that we believe only the Father is Jehovah, Jesus was created and is inferior to the Father, and that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force used by Jehovah” Josh, a Jehovah’s Witness, explained. This was our second meeting, and things were interesting from the moment I answered my door.

Instead of his wife, another guy was standing with Josh – both wearing button down shirts and ties, which made Scott and I feel *slightly* underdressed. After a brief recap from our previous encounter two weeks prior, we dove into a discussion about the Trinity and focused primarily on Jesus. Knowing that Jehovah’s Witnesses are prepared to hear many common arguments and verses defending the divinity of Christ, I decided to use two passages they would not have a ready response to.

I had them turn to Psalm 102 and read verses 25-27. We also did a quick rundown of the chapter by pointing out that verses 1, 12, 15-16, 18-19, 21-22 and 24 are all addressing Yahweh (or “Jehovah”). This made it easy to prove that verses 25-27 were also addressed to Yahweh. I then turned to Hebrews 1 and showed them that the author of Hebrews attributed Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son in verses 10-12. To leave them without any doubt I made reference to verse 8 which begins, “But of the Son He says,…” and then quotes from the Old Testament, then continues on in verse 10, “And,…” and cites from Psalm 102:25-27.

For the sake of clarity I offered, “Here is the author of Hebrews attributing to the Son a passage that describes Yahweh/Jehovah. So then, the Son is also called Yahweh in the scriptures. Now if Jesus were not truly Yahweh then applying Psalm 102:25-27 would be incredibly inappropriate, and even blasphemous. But the author of Hebrews has no problem making direct application of this text from the Psalms to Christ because he is Yahweh.”

To their credit they did try to offer an explanation or two from Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1, but later admitted that they didn’t have a working answer at this point and asked for time to properly address it. I told them I completely respect them for waiting to look into it further. We are scheduled to meet next Saturday around the same time.

Please pray that the triune God might cause them to turn from falsehood unto the true and living God.

Thanks for reading,

Case

What to do with Christians in name-only?

2011-03-20T19:26:00.001-07:00

Have you ever noticed that there are plenty of people around who openly call themselves Christians? Usually at work I'll make a passing reference to "my church" which many times will be followed up asking which church, and then they profess to likewise be Christians. But I'll tell ya, there wasn't any indication from their behavior up to that point that caused me to even think they might be a Christian on a bad day (or a series of bad days).

Even more troublesome to me are the professing Christians who attend gospel-preaching churches on a regular basis who, outside of church, act just like any non-Christian person. I have spent a lot of time recently trying to decide what to make of these church-going so-called Christians who act just like those in the world. This last group is the group that really bothers me, and I think the reason is because the world generally understands that real Christians go to church. Which is why I can understand how easy it would be to confuse a non-Christian who attends church regularly or semi-regularly with an authentic Christian.

True Christianity and true Christians produce a life of good works who agree with God's written word. I will add to this, for those who might be wondering (if I were a reader I would be one wondering), that Christians are sinners - redeemed sinners - but sinners nonetheless. We know our hearts and we know how terrible we are. Some of the thoughts we think, the words we speak, and the actions we take are many times wretched sins. But, Christians are a work in progress and we strive to please God above all else. Paul wrote to the Ephesian Church, "⁸for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light ⁹(for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), ¹⁰trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord." (NASB). This is not something that we are able to conjure up within ourselves, and for some reason that analogy of a man pulling himself up by his boot straps is fixed in my mind, but rather we need God to do this work in us. He must cause our behavior to change or it will never change. Sinners will go on sinning unless the Lord does a work in their heart.

Now that we have that out of the way, what are we to do with these ... so-called Christians? Or pseudo-Christians? Christians in name-only, but who are only putting on a show some of the time. The same Apostle wrote the following about such "Christians," "⁹I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; ¹⁰I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. ¹¹But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. ¹²For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?" (1 Corinthians 5:9-12, NASB). There is a careful distinction made by Paul between (1) immoral people of this world, and (2) any so-called brother. We are granted the freedom to associate with ungodly non-Christians but not with false-professors of Christianity who live like the ungodly. This passage goes on to quote from the Old Testament which reads, "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." We ought to be careful the company we keep, especially when it comes to those who claim the name of Christ. I believe one of the reasons for this strict rule about not associating with Christians in name-only is because of the affect it can have on us as individuals and on our reputation.

Personally, when I meet a professing Christian who doesn't act like a Christian I will do one of two things. First, I usually try to discern if there is a possibility of him actually being a true follower of Christ. If he is, then I will do my best to encourage him in his walk with the Lord. If I am led to believe he is not a believer I will treat him like an unbeliever in the sense that I will preach the gospel to him and focus on the radical requirements of repentance God talks about in His word.

It wasn't only the Corinthian Christians who were concerned about this issue - many faithful today have the same concern, which is why I am so thankful for the God-breathed Scriptures and the clarity they offer on such topics.

Rusty

When you judge others do you also judge yourself?

2011-03-20T01:06:00.001-07:00

My pastor is working his way through Paul's letter to the Romans during Sunday morning worship, and I walk away each week incredibly challenged. Last week he preached on Romans 2:1-3 and I found myself convicted and knew by the end of the sermon that the Apostle's problem with the Jews was one that I sometimes do myself. Here is the text:

^"1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. ²And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. ³But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?" (NASB).

What exactly were the Jews guilty of? Judging non-Jews for sinning. Is this wrong? Well, not necessarily. It is good for a person to be able to discern right from wrong according to God's holy standard of living. What then were the Jews guilty of? Their sin was hypocrisy. While judging the Gentiles for their sins they themselves were doing the very same things! Isn't it easy to quickly pass judgment on another person? Your co-worker, your friend, your fellow brother or sister in the faith.

Funny that when you yourself commit the very same sin ... weeeeell you have a good excuse for doing it. There are reasons for why you did what you did and that makes it not as bad for you. Or so the excusing might go in your mind. But in reality, there is no excuse for the one who breaks God's law. The Lord of heaven and earth cares very much about His creatures obeying His commands.

In the case of the Jews, I believe they would face a harsher judgment of God because of the immense amount of light they received from the Old Testament Law and prophets. Now in my case, and your case (if you are one who has heard the truth), we have even less excuse than those around us who don't profess to be Christians and go to a gospel-believing church every Sunday. More light has been given to us and therefore we are expected to live in that light.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

This is Not a Review, I Say!

2011-01-06T23:41:00.001-07:00

"This book is about the church of Jesus Christ." So reads the first sentence in Mark Driscoll's most recent explanation of his ecclesiology in Vintage Church. My wife and I attended his church, Mars Hill, in Seattle last year and knew I needed a copy the moment I laid eyes on it. Immediately after finishing it I knew I would need a few days to sort out my thoughts. Rather than posting my official review on the book, I've decided to begin by writing out my initial impressions. There are two reasons: first, I needed to buy myself some time *grin*; and second, to more accurately represent what Driscoll has to say.

Mr. Driscoll explains in the introduction the general format for the book will be to define 3 functions of the church: "The result will be a church that is biblically rooted (prophetic/confessional), grace centered (priestly/experiential), and culturally connected (king/missional)" (Driscoll 11). I found myself pleasantly surprised by many of the things he writes, including recognizing some of the errors he made in the Emerging Church Movement. He provides a number of strong hints suggesting he no longer wants to be considered a part of the Emerging Church, and has evolved into something entirely new. Now Driscoll writes about "gospel contextualization" and "missional" ... terms that The Acts 29 Network is well-known for.

While I can honestly say that Mark Driscoll has matured in some of his theological and moral beliefs, his views about the purpose and function of the church have remained relatively the same. What do I mean? "Gospel contextualization" and "missional" are what I mean. He continues to believe that the primary gathering for local churches (the meeting that includes the sermon) should be overly focused upon unbelievers. Now what do I mean? He really does believe that the local church's culture and style ought to change to match the ever-changing culture of the world.

"Not far from my home is a small church that has struggled for years. Every time I drive by that church I pray for it because I love the church, in general, and I know that this church, in particular, has a long history of loving Jesus and believing in the Bible. But it got stuck in a cultural cul de sac, so it couldn't adapt as culture changed. Younger people couldn't connect so they didn't' come. The people died off so that virtually no one was left. The pastor was discouraged and struggled to know what to do. So I decided to try to meet the pastor to see what I could do to encourage and serve him. Thus far I have had no success, despite repeated efforts. Their lack of technology is part of the problem." (Driscoll 267).

Are we seriously expected to believe that the lack of technology within a church service will hinder the Holy Spirit's ability to save lost sinners, encourage the members of this congregation or connect young people to the church? As an example, my concern is not that a church decides to include the use of PowerPoint presentations (or lack thereof - as Driscoll now believes only the Baby Boomer generation enjoys PowerPoint) to aid in a pastor's sermon, but that this use of technology is an attempt to attract people to the church.

Yesterday I was reading in 1 Corinthians 2 and thought of Vintage Church as I read the first 5 verses: "¹And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. ²For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.³I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, ⁴and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, ⁵so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." (NASB). Paul, a tentmaker Pharisee, did not have the resources to put on a contemporary technological marvel for his audiences ... and I'm willing to bet that was the last of his concerns. He trusted in the power of the gospel to save through the foolishness of the message preached. It is not through our cleverness that saves sinners.

All this energy is spent in making the gospel more relevant for various cultures, when the gospel is already relevant for every person. All we need to do is clearly proclaim its message to every tribe, tongue and nation. The church is to go out into the world to proclaim the gospel as our primary means of evangelism. Yes, preach the gospel during the sermon-meeting of the local church, but most evangelism is done outside of the sermon-gatherings. This ... this is where Mark's focus is slightly off-focus.

Thanks for bearing with me in the introduction to Casey's thoughts on Mark Driscoll's latest,

Casey

A New Design for a New Year

2010-12-31T00:58:00.002-07:00

Well? ... What do you think? Figured two years is time enough to put the old design to rest.

Some of you will want to know that I finished Mark Driscoll's "Vintage Church." I'm presently mulling over my thoughts on the book; once I've made some headway you can bet I'll be putting together a few words on the subject =). It's not everything I thought it would be. He did surprise me some.

I'm amused that the previous paragraph - if you can call it a proper paragraph - both begin and end with the word "some." Or maybe it's just that it's 1 AM and I'm a little slap-happy before bed.

Before my start date with Schwab I hope to work through a number of interesting reads, including former President Bush's new book.

Goodnight my friends, and Happy New Year's Eve!

rustypth

Word Travels Really Fast - Part 2

2010-12-29T07:00:00.000-07:00

"¹⁶For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16, NASB)

The anticipation for my next appointment was growing. I had been preparing throughout the week for possible counter-responses and objections, if for no other reason than to be capable of accurately presenting the gospel to them.

Finally the day came, and they were on time (they usually are - which is a good quality). After catching up for a few minutes, we jumped right into where we left off. I asked if they had a response to Isaiah 45? They were clearly stunned. One looked to the other, who replied silently with an awkward glance towards me. The senior missionary shrugged his shoulders and tried to explain why they hadn't had time to discover an interpretation that supports their beliefs.

"Does it bother you that this passage seems to contradict the Eternal Law of Progression?" I asked.

Sadly, the conversation could have been repeated by any number of missionaries I've met with before them. They began by attacking the Bible's inerancy, then moved onto attacking my sincerity ... because if I was sincerely seeking the truth the Holy Spirit would have revealed to me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the only true Church today.

As they tried to end our meeting early, I asked for one more moment of their time and explained how this conversation looks from my perspective. "Even though you doubt the sincerity of my faith, I don't doubt yours. I believe you are sincere in your conviction that the LDS Church is the true Church, but I believe that you are sincerely wrong. You see that the Bible contradicts your beliefs and so you attack the Bible's authenticity. But you do so based on a Church and prophets that disagree with the Bible. This is classic anachronism: interpreting what comes before by something afterwards. This is backwards; rather, the Bible ought to be the test for the Mormon faith because it came before. I urge you to re-read the passage in Isaiah and strongly consider what the Lord is saying to you in Scripture."

They smiled, we shook hands, and they were on their way. Like so many missionaries I have spoken with, this conversation was very typical. It saddens me to my very core that they are so deceived with a false gospel, but I also need to remind myself that the power of salvation is the gospel. I pray that the Holy Spirit does reveal Himself to those two gentlemen, through the Scriptures so that they might see the lies they were taught. My God can save anybody, so I know there is hope. I will continue to pray for their salvation, and trust that the Lord's will will be done.

Thanks for reading,
Case of Base

Word Travels Fast

2010-12-19T07:01:00.000-07:00

Word travels fast, or so it seemed to me when the second pair of Latter-day Saint missionaries I met "had heard of me." I suppose I should take that as a compliment? =). I did.

They came knocking on my door after I requested a new copy of the Book of Mormon after my brother-in-law told me there were recently some minor grammatical changes. Of course, I invited them inside so that we might have a beneficial conversation. It has been my custom for some time to be very up front with Mormons so that they know my agenda right away. I'd rather be up front about my intentions so that there is no confusion on their part as to whether I am seeking to convert or not. Most often this is received well and will allow for at least a lengthy discussion or two.

Our time together began with brief introductions followed by an explanation of what I hoped to accomplish by our meeting. Right off the bat I find it important to set some ground rules: (1) They know I am not interested in becoming a Latter-day Saint, (2) I put myself on the same level with them by explaining that I am likewise a missionary for my gospel, (3) I explain that though we use similar terminology we mean completely different things by them, (4) It is my intention to use persuasive arguments while not becoming argumentative - a polite but passionate discussion is what I'm after.

Setting the stage helps immensely in avoiding LDS-taught tactics to avoid conversations with people not ready and willing to convert immediately.

So I began by suggesting the Trinity as a starting point because it would force us to focus on many of our essential differences. It was at this point that these missionaries asked me if I recently met with another pair of missionaries. I told them I had, to which they informed me they had heard of me. Apparently, what they were told is that I was passionate but a lost cause. The missionaries sitting before me couldn't understand why they were told that because I was "such a nice guy." There was some nervous laughter as they realized the awkwardness of my hearing that I was a lost cause ... =).

In any case, we moved on from there to discuss the first tenet of the doctrine of the Trinity: absolute monotheism. I stuck to one passage throughout our dialogue: Isaiah 45:18-21,

"18For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else. ¹⁹"I have not spoken in secret, In some dark land; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek Me in a waste place'; I, the LORD, speak righteousness, Declaring things that are upright. ²⁰"Gather yourselves and come; Draw near together, you fugitives of the nations; They have no knowledge, Who carry about their wooden idol And pray to a god who cannot save.²¹"Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior, There is none except Me."

Many familiar with discussions with the Latter-day Saints would wonder how they continue to believe in polytheism in light of passages like this. The truth is that it takes a great deal of effort to suppress the truth contained in this passage. Comparing the Mormon doctrine of the Eternal Law of Progression ("As man is God once was; as God is man may become") with the Bible demonstrates the utter falsehood of this Mormon doctrine.

Rather than interacting with the text of Scripture, these missionaries accused the Bible of being corrupt, and it is only because of latter-day revelation through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the gospel has been recovered. I quickly took them to Matthew 24:35, "³⁵"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." And asked them if Jesus' prophecy contained in the New Testament passed away? Not wanting to accuse Christ of being a false prophet (for which I am thankful), we were able to agree for the moment that the Bible is reliable.

I brought them back to the text of Isaiah 45 and asked them how the Eternal Law of Progression could be true in light of Scripture?

The senior of the two admitted they did not have an answer, but agreed to prepare a response for our next meeting, which I will blog about in my next entry.

Thanks for reading,

Rusty

August 14 to Present Recap

2010-12-19T07:00:00.000-07:00

Have you ever stopped long enough to catch your breath and wonder where the time went? Beyond any doubt my blog is representative of this, or rather, there is a lack of representation *grin*.

For any casual readers who still meander their way through my corner of cyberspace I'll recap some personal updates so you don't feel left out. Most significantly, my wife and I were married August 14 of this year, and what a marvelous occasion that was. She was stunningly beautiful, and I ... well, I was made to look good standing next to her.

Within a few weeks I was offered my own store at Starbucks! But, another opportunity came knocking on my door. The 9th was my last day with the Starbucks Coffee Company, and I am now employed with Charles Schwab as a stock broker.

Emily and I bought our first home together in a nice part of Gilbert. We are thrilled to have this 1500 square foot blessing so early in our life together. Every day that passes our house looks more and more like a home.

2010 was a year the Lord was especially merciful to me and my wife of four months. We are settling into our lifelong adventure and couldn't be happier with where God has brought us.

Please expect regular updates from here on out. My new job means I now have a consistent work schedule with less stress, thus freeing up mental energy to spend on the things that I love.

You'll be hearing from me soon, Lord willing,

Rusty

Freedom from Porn

2010-06-01T07:00:00.001-07:00

Avid Apple users, you will do well to skip the first two paragraphs. Kkthxforplaying.

For YEARS I have criticized and poked fun at Apple for striving to be different than personal computers. In fact, I remember when my family purchased our first PC. I was in the seventh grade, and I was strongly motivated to encourage my parents to get one after experiencing my first real-time strategy game: Warcraft 2. Many a conversation was to be had with my best friend, Scott, about why PC’s were superior to Macintosh, including that Mac’s were not compatible with most computer games. For whatever reason, Apple has worn as a banner of pride that they aren’t compatible with PC’s.

[One quick comment before I continue – it has been overly amusing to me to see Mac’s, for all intents and purposes, recently turn into expensive PC’s. They use intel processors, incorporate Microsoft Office, and can run a Windows OS! What’s the difference between Mac’s and PC’s? Mac’s are four times as expensive. You are essentially paying for their operating system].

There. I got it out of my system, lollerbeamz go pew pew =).

Even though Apple and Mac users annoy me to no end with their mind numbing claims of superiority, I was so proud after reading an exchange between Steve Jobs and a blogger at “Valleywag.” Apple’s CEO received an email criticizing them for standing in the way of freedom to look at internet pornography on the iphone, itouch and ipad. “Is Apple about freedom?” he was asked. Steve had this to say in response:

“Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin’.”

I don’t know about you but I don’t think I can even recall another CEO who has taken a firm stance against the pornography industry. Consider the position a man like Steve Jobs is in, then consider the above statement. I mean, wow. That took some serious nerve. I honestly had no idea he had these kinds of convictions. He goes on to talk about how he wants Apple to help introduce new technologies that aren’t developed first by and for the porn industry. Gotta be honest here, this is a wonderful thing, and Steve Jobs has earned my respect

*glances over his shoulder for the Doc, or Jamie, or any other deceived #prosapologian Mac user*

I was even more surprised that Apple’s app store won’t distribute pornographic applications either! The news just keeps getting better and better. Macintosh will probably never be the right fit for a guy like me – mainly because I like hardware and software choices, aaand because I prefer to pay one quarter of the price of Macintosh for the same thing – but Jobs takes a good stance. For that, I give him mad props.

Does anyone know anything about Steve Jobs’ religious background?

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Racism

2010-05-20T07:01:00.003-07:00

"Racism." That's the term many on the political Left choose to use when referring to those of us who are opposed to illegal immigration. To be fair, it isn't everyone who leans towards the liberal side of things that calls conservatives racist. But it is enough for the main stream media to barrage us with that sort of namecalling.

As best I can tell, the racist charge looks something like this formula:

Opposition to Illegal Immigration = Not Liking Hispanics/Latinos.

How one arrives at this kind of formula, I will never know, because I honestly believe all human beings are equal in value to one another. I will go a step further and say that every single person is created in the image of the triune God. At the same time, I am adamantly against aliens trying to unlawfully enter this nation.

I am 100% in favor of having foreigners migrate to this country, only let it be done the right way: legally. If you're unhappy with the process to gain citizenship or the amount of people allowed to emigrate to the United States, then work to change the existing laws.

It baffles me how people on the Left think they can somehow completely understand the hidden motivations and intents of our hearts, and even read into our beliefs the opposite of what we say that we mean. For example, I'm not a racist ... but I am accused of being one because I believe people should only emigrate to the U.S. legally. This doesn't make sense to me. Let me explain my own beliefs and convictions, and please, please, take me at my word.

Around lunchtime I have a chance to catch some of talk radio, and today heard a segment on Medved's show that made me laugh out loud in frustration. For some reason Michael Medved has increasingly become a moderate Republican, and that is especially the case when it comes to illegal immigration. He said that he thinks it is a bad idea for the Republican Party to be known as the "anti-Latino" party because of our stance against illegal immigration.

What I want to ask Michael is this: how is being against illegal-immigration against Latinos? If his answer is that is how I will be perceived by the Mexican-American population, my response would be: so be it. There is nothing I can do if someone wrongly chooses to believe Republicans are racists for trying to secure our borders, and uphold our laws. Oy ... never know what I'm gonna get when I listen to talk radio =)

Ah, the joys of politics,

Rusty

LOST is nearing the end sniffle sniffle

2010-05-20T07:00:00.000-07:00

For those of you who have yet to enjoy NBC's LOST, I will do my best to not include any spoilers whatsoever. w00ty freakin w00t.

Ran across this article today, written by the actor who plays Hurley, giving his final thoughts and comments on the show coming to a close.

I didn't become an avid fan until season 4, and that only because my best friend was a mega-fan of the show. I vividly remember more than one Nelson family get-together where my presence was a conversation killer. The reason? Because I had yet to watch LOST, and they refused to spoil it for me.

Reluctantly, I began to watch the show by borrowing the DVD's from Scott. He and his sister introduced some of the LOST theorists presented through YouTube, and that's when I knew the series was a hit.

Emily has also taken to the show, and the two of us have made it a weekly ritual to watch that week's episode at Scott and Mindy's place on Tuesdays. I honestly don't know what we're going to do after this Sunday night when LOST is over. I imagine we'll have to get started on a new show =) (Emily already wants to begin Alias. Sooo ... Alias it is!).

For those of you who have yet to get lost in LOST (yes, I really did say that outloud; err, via chat), I will say that this is my second favorite show of all time. My favorite part about the series is that just once I feel I'm gaining a grasp on what's really going on, they introduce a new perspective that changes everything.

Whatever the 2.5 hours series finale brings, I'm sure I'll love every minute of it.

Until next time,
Rusty

You mean the President isn't a gamer?!

2010-05-11T07:00:00.001-07:00

Hampton University had the honor of having President Obama deliver the commencement address to those in attendance. Unless you’re living in Canada, you’ve no doubt heard some of the controversial remarks he made about information, technology and democracy. Here is the relevant portion of these remarks:

“And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.”

Most of what I’ve caught the news media discussing is how the President is somewhat “dissing” technology and video games. While this is somewhat true, I personally believe a president ought to have some leeway in poking fun at certain genres – in this case, technologies – without getting beat up about it.

What is upsetting about the President’s words, however, have nothing to do with the President’s inability to use an ipad or xbox360. Ironically enough, while mentioning kinds of informational distractions, he uses distractions himself by joking about his lack of having and using various technologies and games. I believe that the President’s point had very little to do about technology, and everything to do with information being harmful for democracy.

We are living in the “Information Age,” and as Barack Obama rightly pointed out, we have a wealth of information available to us. In fact, we have more information available than any civilization in the history of mankind. The President specifically mentions that there are bad arguments out there. I happen to agree with him. But this begs the question: why bother to mention this? If we continue reading his comments we’ll discover his purpose when he said, “information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”

I’m sorry, what?! So then, knowledge isn’t power?

To those who have defended the President by arguing that his only intention was to say that video games and entertainment media are unhelpful, I would simply ask how this makes sense considering the speech in its entirety? He spends a great deal of time talking about democracy, and even does so here. He goes so far as to mention bad arguments that don’t rank high in truthfulness.

This leads me to my next question: is the President implying that certain forms of information are dangerous to democracy? If so, what should be done about it?

Do I even need to mention the first amendment and the right to free speech for citizens? This means that even when there are arguments and beliefs I disagree with, people should have the right to express their perspectives. Period. Even if they are bad arguments that don’t rank high on the truth meter. How can this be bad for Democracy? I would submit to you that it is beneficial and necessary for Democracy. Let every perspective be expressed and let the people decide for themselves.

My fear in hearing Obama’s speech is the undertone that bad arguments and untruthful arguments are an enemy of empowerment, emancipation and democracy. Is he implying that government has the responsibility to ensure only good arguments are delivered to the public? I sincerely hope not.

Had Benjamin Franklin attended the commencement ceremony he would not have been pleased by Obama’s thoughts about more information being bad for democracy. It was Franklin who published one of the more popular newspapers in the colonies and experienced first-hand the underhanded back-biting that took place in nearly every paper (he even contributed on more than one occasion). Were Obama to be consistent, he would have to condemn the bad arguments and untruths taking place at the time of the Revolution so that democracy would be benefited. Ironically, it was the expression of many opinions and beliefs – even bad arguments and untrue statements – that contributed to our own political process, and not an attempt to convince the public that only certain kinds of information are helpful to emancipation.

On a side-note, G4TV’s take on this issue has been hilarious. Gamers are all up in arms now. Better not diss technology if you wanna have the l33test fans ftw, Mr. President =).

Thanks for reading,
Rustoleum

The Tea Partier's Rallying Cry

2010-05-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

It was completely a spur of the moment decision, but remember a couple weeks back when those Tea Party rallies were happening all over the country? I decided to attend one. I have had mixed feelings about the movement, and I wasn’t overly happy to discover that they take almost no stances on any moral issue. The only things they are united on are their desire for lower taxes and less government.

For whatever reason, I was watching the most boring television program on FoxNews: Greta Van Sustren’s hour-long segment, and for the first time in a long time she caught my attention. I mean she really caught my attention. She was talking about the Tea Party rallies that would be happening (this was the day before April 15th), about the President’s health care bill, and how the Federal government will increase the tax bracket. 10pm being way past my bedtime, I stayed up well past 11pm watching the program and trying to mentally sort out some political issues.

Tax Day was one of my days off that week, so once I woke up and saw live footage of Tea Party rallies around the nation, I knew I had to see what they were all about. The one held in the East Valley was at Freestone Park in Gilbert, which was all of 2 miles away. Parking was a nightmare until the police designated a nearby field as a parking lot =). People were showing up in droves, and the atmosphere was electric. I heard people talking about their outrage for the ever-expanding growth of government and how this is an encroachment of their rights. Of course, there were uber-libertarians present as well, opposed to 99.9% of government functions – I don’t fit this category, mainly because there are certain things I believe government is responsible for: protecting her citizens and securing our liberties.

Dozens upon dozens of speakers were given an opportunity to briefly promote their Tea Party group, and I heard a variety of opinions about government, tax policy, health insurance, and a few moral issues. Overall, the one thing that was abundantly clear about the movement’s goals: fewer taxes and less government = more freedom and liberty. Having thought of Tea Partiers for years as Ron Paul radicals, it was a pleasant surprise to find thousands of normal people all with the same goal.

The event was unfolding with a relative calm until the one (yes, only one) protestor showed up. I kid you not, the very moment he started loudly booing, he was encircled by dozens of people angry at his disruption. Hoping that the poor guy wouldn’t get killed for his foolishness, I stepped in to shake his hand and hear him out. We had a fairly decent conversation about the purpose of government, capitalism vs. socialism, morality and worldviews, and then religion. We exchanged email addresses to further our conversation. I’ll let you know if anything comes of it.

At one point during the rally I was getting bored, hot and tired, so I began making my way back towards Leia II. Once I reached the parking lot, a nice-looking suburban stops in front of me and out steps J.D. Hayworth (running for Senate)! I stood there for a moment, probably looking a bit dumbfounded, pointed to him and said, “J.D.?” He came over, shook my hand and asked my name. He then invited me to walk with him into the rally. In the midst of our very general and brief conversation, I managed to say to him that I was glad he was running and that “I’m not 100% sure who I’ll be voting for, but definitely not McCain!” He laughed.

A friend at church made a suggestion that I may take: somehow helping J.D. Hayworth’s election campaign. I have a strong desire to do something to help the Republicans and put a stop to the rapid expansion of government started by President Obama and the Democratic Party.

On a related note … the information that initially caught my attention on Greta Van Sustren’s show was a discussion of how much the average middle-class American’s tax bracket will increase if Obama gets his way. Right now it is sitting at 35%, that is, until the Bush tax cuts Obama didn’t renew expire. From that simple action alone the tax bracket will be raised to 41%. Obamacare was signed into law but hasn’t taken effect yet. Once the bill and program begins to need funding this will add anywhere from 12-16% in taxes. This is guestimated by considering most European nations that have a government insurance program. Even if we go with the lowest number of 12%, this raises the tax bracket of the average middle-class citizen from 35% to 53%! I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. This kind of FDR / Jimmy Carter policy is just too much government. I would go a step further and say that even 35% is too much.

The desire for the state to gain more power is never ending, and must be kept in check at every turn to keep government in its place. The fact of the matter is, with the right kinds of reform government insurance is unnecessary. In fact, public education is unnecessary. How can I say this? Think about it: what did people ever do before the government provided insurance for them? Weeell, they purchased insurance on their own. Or, what did people do before government-run schools? Were Americans uneducated? Actually, the private schools in the United States were considered the best in the world, at one time. Charter schools are a step in the right direction, but really, the Department of Education is utterly unnecessary. Who is the government to define what an education is and is not anyway? Americans want to be educated, and we don’t need the government to coerce them to receive one. The benefits to finding a job require people to get one. But I’m straying a bit off topic; surely the reader gets my meaning.

I’ll conclude with this: the November elections are approaching, and with them I hope many career politicians are voted out of office. Only then will real and effective change begin to happen. This election is so critical because with enough Republicans and conservatives we can either overturn Obamacare and/or cut its funding. One way or the other, the American people have spoken: no Obamacare, and more liberty to make personal decisions. Hard to argue with that, especially in light of the Bill of Rights.

Thanks for reading,
Case

Health Insurance a Natural Right?

2010-04-06T07:00:00.002-07:00

The Enlightenment, for all its flaws and worldly perspectives, brought about some results that the vast majority of Westerners enjoy and approve of today. An Enlightened thinker would argue for “natural rights,” not always on the basis of the Bible – though sometimes from Scripture – but more often than not from a theistic perspective. In particular, our nation’s founding fathers overwhelmingly believed that there are certain “inalienable rights” given to all men from the one and only god (whoever that god might happen to be).

Having studied the period known as the Enlightenment, it is humorous to me that liberals now claim it is a natural right to have health insurance. Upon hearing this claim for the first time by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a number of questions came to mind: What did our founding fathers mean by “natural rights?” Why did the Federal government wait 200+ years to recognize health insurance as a natural right? In light of the fact that “natural rights” were considered by the Enlightenment Thinkers to be the protection of private property and personal happiness from the ever-present desire of government to expand and become involved in the affairs of her citizens, how can forcing health insurance fit into that?

Never before has the Federal government forced her citizens to purchase a service on a massive scale. I did not think I would see this kind of encroachment of our liberties in my lifetime. Honestly, I didn’t. Yet, in a single moment 1/6th of the American economy was handed over to the Federal government.

What about those who argue that this health insurance bill is a good thing because now 32 million people who didn’t have insurance will now be able to get insurance through the government? How might I respond? Very simply: it seems like wisdom to give the government this kind of responsibility, until one thinks it through. Because I want everyone to have insurance, just like liberals and socialists do. But why does the government need to be responsible for folks getting insurance? Aren’t people capable of taking care of themselves? I say yes: people are fully capable of making their own financial and health decisions.

The liberal may then say, “Fine – but what about the honest working man who wants insurance but can’t because of an existing precondition and/or is in-between jobs?” So glad you asked! Why not pass meaningful health insurance reform to ensure individuals can hang on to their policies in-between jobs, and can be accepted with preconditions (though prices will vary based on the conditions). There is much more to it than that, but even these simple suggestions make the Obama health care bill completely unnecessary. Aaand it would remove government hands from [what should remain] a private industry.

Each time I talk with liberals about why the private sector is a better option than the state, it amazes me how little they have thought through the result of the government suddenly being responsible to provide health insurance for 32 million individuals. First of all, they would instantaneously become the nation’s largest health insurance company. President Obama has already talked about setting price controls, which would be utterly detrimental to the industry. I can’t fathom a company with any sense at all remaining in the health insurance industry, trying to compete with the federal government. No health insurance company has 32 million insureds; and this number is just to get started. Businesses will soon learn it will be cheaper to stop providing insurance for their employees and pay the government fine. These employees may then try to find the more expensive private insurance … or, most likely will take advantage of the government option which they are already paying for with their taxes. Gonna take a stab at it, but I’m willing to bet within 10 years 70 million people will be insured by the government. The process will continue this upward spiral until the government option becomes the only option.

Joe-liberal may ask, “Why is the government being the only insurance provider a problem?” Answer: because the quality of health-care will drastically decrease. As we speak, British elections have the quality of health-care at the fore-front of their political discussion. Because the government is the sole insurance provider, the government limits what kinds of drugs and treatments can be used on patients. In fact, they were discussing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday how the most advanced breast cancer and prostate cancer treatments are not available in England. This is what happens with Socialized medicine; there is a limited budget which equates to a rationed health care system. Frightening.

Government insurance will be great … unless you get sick and need to see a specialist and/or a special treatment/procedure.

Do I even need to say that increasing the size of government is bad for the private sector? Sure, the IRS will need more employees to keep track of who’s insured and who isn’t, meanwhile the private sector will continue to diminish. When government increases, private property and rights decrease.

Thanks for reading,
Case

Socialized Medicine

2010-03-24T07:01:00.001-07:00

Most of what I remember from the 80’s is limited to cartoons (Transformers, Ninja Turtles, He-Man [totally random, but I wonder if he found his She-Woman?], and my favorite: GI Joes) and playground experiences. This is why I tend to think of myself more as a child of the 90’s on into the 00’s. Like most kids, politics was off in the distant future while I sorted out more important issues to me at the time. For me, it was working out kinks in my theology until about 2004. This was the year politics meant something to me. I began reading the news, listening to talk radio, and thinking hard about the prominent political discussions of the day. I registered as a Republican and cast an informed vote in the Presidential election.

From my own experience, I’ve discovered that once one becomes informed about the world it is difficult to walk back into ignorance because there is so much that needs fixing. You learn that government is a necessary evil that God establishes to constrain the wicked desires of man’s heart, and to maintain civility in society.

I’d have serious doubts if the reader didn’t know ahead of time most of my political conclusions, but how is it I ended up reaching these conclusions? Certainly the most important influences were my parents, my best friend, and the folks at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. Aware of my own presuppositions and traditions, I knew that the truthfulness of my beliefs needs to be consistent, which is why I spent a great deal of time and energy thinking about politics. Staying informed of the political landscape has enabled me to engage in a host of ideas: the role of government, morality in government and society, how a Christian is supposed to function within a governmental framework, a Christian’s role within democracy, and so on and so forth.

2004 until today have been an interesting six or seven years, as you’re probably aware. I have experienced political ups and downs with each victory and loss. The most important issue, however, happened this past Sunday when the House passed a historic bill that will forever change the direction of this nation. Many have said this already, but it is worth repeating: the America we knew is coming to an end. Government insurance that will cover 30+ million Americans will do that to a nation.

Are the Republicans being a bit too extreme in their reaction to this healthcare reform bill? No, I don’t believe so. Let me explain … 30+ million people insured by the government will make them the largest health insurance company in the country. No other insurance company in their right mind will try to compete with the kind of rates the government will control. This means these insurance companies will be forced to expand to other kinds of insurance – home, auto, business, life – ooor simply go out of business. This is inevitable. Next, we’ll see the government be the sole insurance provider for health care. The Speaker of the House and our President claim that this healthcare reform bill will actually decrease the cost of healthcare and lower the national deficit! How can this be in light of the fact that the government will now be paying with our tax dollars for these 30+ million insureds. This is insanity … pure insanity to say the deficit will decrease when our spending increases.

Why are Republicans so worked up over this? Because the Socialization of healthcare increases government control of our lives and reduces the freedom we have. Rather than choosing whether we want healthcare or not, the government will decide for us. Like the public school system, it seems a logical and practical step that the government will decide what doctors and hospitals you can go to. They may even decide which cases are too costly to pay for – they will have millions upon millions to pay for, you see.

It is a simple matter of freedom versus Socialism. Don’t be fooled for a moment that the issue is really about covering millions of people who cannot afford healthcare. The issue is about our freedoms as individuals. I don’t want to pay for someone else’s healthcare. I don’t want the government to take away more of my money. My goodness, how much more can they take from us? Isn’t 35-40% enough?!

How do I respond to the accusation that Republicans don’t want these 30+ million people to have access to health insurance? Why don’t we pass meaningful healthcare reform that allows individuals to keep health insurance in-between jobs, and with pre-existing conditions. Yes, having a pre-condition will mean your insurance rate will be higher than someone without any pre-conditions. But again, this assumes personal responsibility over against government mandated insurance like Social Security. Really, with the right kind of reform, Americans are fully capable of providing for their own health insurance, just as they are capable of planning for their own retirement.

Ronald Reagan made a point that I must reiterate to you. He said that Americans will never vote under the banner of “Socialism” but they will under the banner of “Liberalism,” which claims to defend the middle-class by increasing the role of the state. A fair warning indeed.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Too Much to Tell

2010-03-24T07:00:00.000-07:00

Truly, so much has happened since my last post, I don’t know where to begin. Emily said yes … to my proposal in marriage. Somehow, I managed to convince her to marry a guy like me, and how lucky I am! That Irish luck thing finally paid off, it seems. After far too long [Master Kenobi] I’ve earned my Bachelor’s degree in Business Management. Lastly, it’s been about five months since my promotion, but I was promoted at Starbucks. Oh! Last of the lasterlies, Emily and I bought a house that will be closing on the 30th. W00ty w00t.

Curious as to how I managed to persuade my Emily to say yes? Valentine’s Day was approaching, and I thought that to pop the question on that particular day would be far too expected. I did, however, drop hints to mislead her to believe I would be proposing on Valentine’s Day – yup, I’m evil. In actuality, the Saturday before V-Day, I told her we had plans for a double date with my best friend Scott, and his lovely wife, Mindy. We were supposed to have some couple’s shots with Adam (Scott’s bro-in-law), so we were all dressed slightly upwards from casual. A faked phone call was all that was needed to continue on the charade that Adam was actually meeting with us to take our picture. Once we arrived at one of the Superstition Mountain’s lakes, we parked and decided to walk around while we waited for Adam. Scott and Mindy created some distance and it wasn’t long after that that I read to Emily an early Valentine’s Day card, in which were some song lyrics that I had been saving to read to the one I would propose to, dropped to my knee, and held out the ring. By God’s free grace, she quickly said yes, and I would be lying if I said there weren’t a few tears from the both of us. It was a spectacular moment, one that we will undoubtedly remember for the rest of our lives together.

Because the parallels between myself and Chris Farley might be made, I shall refrain from stating the total amount of time I spent to earn my degree. Nevertheless, earned it I did. The most exciting part of having this accomplishment under my belt is how it will open up more possibilities for me in the future.

It has been five? six? months since I was promoted to a management position at Val Vista and Southern. Great learning experience thus far, especially working with a whole new set of folks. I’ve learned some invaluable lessons from a business angle and interpersonal-savvy angle. All I can say is this: QASA, VIA, SKCDL’s, DCM’s and scones have been my life during this brief time. I’ll try not to have nightmares about the drive-thru bell ringing in my ear every 20 seconds =).

Perhaps two weeks after Emily and I were engaged, we made a bid on a house. We found this house on our very first day of house-hunting, and both knew this was the one within minutes (in fact, we only spent a grand total of five minutes inside the first time). That’s all it took. We have done everything on our end, so now we wait for the bank to fund the loan and BAM. That’s all she wrote. Lord willing, everything goes smoothly from this point onward.

Our wedding date is August 14th, and that day cannot come soon enough. Maybe I should have listened to my fiancé who suggested we marry a month sooner? =). There you have it: my life update in a nutshell. Thanks for reading.

Rusty

Compatibalist Freedom

2010-01-28T07:00:00.000-07:00

David,

Thank you for your email and your excellent questions. These are both well formulated and well thought out; I very much appreciate that.

Your first question: “If God ordains and puts all sin and disobedience into motion by His plans, how does the blame for this sin land on sinners and not Himself?”

Though it is true that men perform the actions ordained by God since eternity they are also held accountable for their actions. This is what we call Compatibalist Freedom. There is a distinction made between primary and secondary causes. God is the primary cause for all things that happen in time and space. Secondary causes are accomplished through the agents themselves. God ordained the Fall of Adam and Eve, yet it was actualized through Adam and Eve. It was not God who sinned, but Adam and Eve.

There are 3 clear examples in Scripture that teach Compatibalist Freedom: Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10:5-14, and Acts 4:27-28.

Genesis 50:20, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” (NASB).

Shortly before our text, Joseph and his brothers witnessed their father‘s death. After they finished burying him, his brothers began to worry that Joseph may take vengeance for the many evil deeds they did against him (vs. 15). Eventually they approach Joseph to beg for mercy, and Joseph responds in verse 20. His brothers meant much evil against Joseph, and yet God intended good from these actions. This means that God had a purpose all along for the many evil difficulties they forced upon their brother. God had intentions for their actions before they were ever performed! Joseph showed mercy to his brothers, even though they were clearly guilty of the actions God ordained ahead of time.

Isaiah 10:5-14, “5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, 6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. 7 Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations. 8 For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? 9 "Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus? 10 "As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, 11 Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" 12 So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." 13 For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants, 14 And my hand reached to the riches of the peoples like a nest, And as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth; And there was not one that flapped its wing or opened its beak or chirped.”” (NASB).

In this scenario Assyria is used by God to punish His people for their godlessness. Assyria “did not so intend” or “plan so in its heart” to attack Jerusalem but only to “destroy and to cut off many nations.” And so God uses Assyria to attack Jerusalem. After the fact, God punishes Assyria for “the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.”

This is another example of God causing events and then holding the individuals involved responsible. In this case, Assyria didn’t even intend … but God did intend for them to do this. Then Assyria is held accountable and punished accordingly.

Finally, Acts 4:27-28 may be the most important of these 3 examples because of who is involved in God’s predestining purpose: Jesus Christ.

Acts 4:27-28 “27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB).

Luke records Peter’s and John’s response to the priests, elders and scribes. The point I will make from this text is that the Lord predestined many decisions and actions which resulted in the suffering of Christ, yet Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews are all accountable before God for their behavior and involvement.

Next, I would like to address a possible implication from your question. Are you implying that without a libertarian freedom man cannot be held accountable for his actions? If so, I would simply ask how such a freedom can exist since men are unable to do other than what God foreknew they would do? In other words, if men lack the liberty to act apart from the foreknowledge of God then they cannot possess a freedom independent of all forces (including God’s). Libertarianism is clearly not the kind of freedom men possess. Rather, the Bible teaches that men have a compatibalist freedom, where under the sovereign rulership of God men are still accountable for their deeds.

On to your second question: “If genuine, unprovoked devotion is not, and cannot be part of His plans due to His sovereign nature, why did He not create everyone with a natural positive response to His being?”

Very simply - because God, in His infinite wisdom, decided to create the way He did. I will make reference to Ephesians 1 and Romans 9. Also consider that the secret things belong to the Lord; we know only what God has revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29). Going beyond the Scriptures into speculation about why God ordained things this way is futile since only the mind of the Lord knows such things. We might as well ask why God created the law of gravity the way He did.

I hope this was beneficial for you. If you would like to continue on this discussion, or have further questions please let me know.

Because of the sovereign rulership of God,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin

2010-01-14T07:00:00.001-07:00

Joshua,

Job is a wonderful book, full of insight into the mighty control of our God, even over the terrible events that happen in the lives of His saints. You asked if the end result of Job’s conversation with God is with the Lord essentially telling Job, “How dare you question me?” Yes, this is what I believe is happening. God is the Creator of all things, including events that occur in time and space. He ordains everything for the betterment of His people; the good and the evil.

You said, “If it is, then I really don't understand Job accepting God's Authority.”

God has ultimate authority. He is the ruler over everything that exists, so Job accepting this fact was wise on his part =).

You continued, “I mean, God allowed Satan to take everything from him, and offers no direct reasons why.”

Being the sovereign over all creation, God does not have to answer to us … for anything. In fact, we only know what God allows us to know about His purposes. Otherwise, it is kept hidden from us (Deut 29:29).

The lesson from the book of Job is that the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. But whether He gives or takes away, we are to bless His name. Job 1:20-22, “20 Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head, and he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21 He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD." 22 Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.” (NASB).

All good things come from God’s hand, and all these things we do not deserve. Therefore, how can we complain when the Lord takes back what was from Him? If we received what we deserve we would face God’s judgment and then sent to Hell for all eternity to be punished for our sins. But thank the Maker of all that He has chosen to demonstrate His mercy on a great multitude of guilty sinners. This is why Job did not blame God when God used Satan to take away His family, possessions and health. Job did not originally deserve the blessings from God’s hand, so what right did He have to complain, much less to question the wisdom of God in purposing what He purposed to happen?

While we do not always know the reasons behind why God is doing something, we must remember the promise of God that He does everything for the good of those that love him (Romans 8:28).

I hope this was of help to you. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject, or if there is anything I can help you with.

Because of the sovereign rulership of our God,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin

Preparation for Witnessing to Latter-day Saints

2010-01-07T07:01:00.001-07:00

Rob sent Alpha and Omega an email looking for help in witnessing to a pair of LDS missionaries, and mentioned that he was "burning" to present the gospel to them. I wish more Christians were like Rob. Hopefully, I was able to give him a good start to further prepare to be a faithful witness to the Latter-day Saint community in his area. Here's what I sent him, and may also help you as you do your best to present the gospel of our Lord to all men:

Hello Rob,

First of all, I thank God for you and your willingness to preach the gospel to this pair of Latter-day Saint full-time missionaries. I have met so many Christians who prefer to shut the door on Mormons rather than reasoning with them from the Scriptures, so please know you are a great encouragement to me.

Your approach in how you plan on talking with these young Mormons (if you have not already) sounds great to me. I have met with dozens of LDS missionaries over the years and am actually meeting with a pair right now, going on our fifth encounter next week - which I’ve learned is quite rare. My approach is similar to yours, in that, I try to be extremely up-front in the beginning. I let them know right away that I have no desire to convert to the Latter-day Saint church, that I have read the entirety of their Scriptures and have intensely studied their belief-system in an attempt to better understand their perspectives, and that it is my goal to convert them just as it is their goal to convert me. Lastly, I mention that I prefer to have a pleasant conversation and polite debate centering around our differences in hopes of winning them over.

This seems to work much better than my first attempt with a pair of LDS missionaries where I was not forthright and led them to believe I was a seeker, possibly interested in investigating their church. Being straightforward with them is respectful, and I believe, the God-honoring approach.

In your discussions with them try to control the topics of conversation - there is no need to go through their lesson plans. Many times I will select a topic that focuses on a core difference between us. For example, in my current discussions with missionaries we are talking about how many true gods exist, as well as the nature of God. The Trinity is regularly needing to be mentioned, along with what I do not believe about God. Comparing and contrasting my beliefs with theirs, then demonstrating that the Biblical evidence fully supports our beliefs about God, and also does not support their beliefs is the best approach to take. Whatever approach you take, continue to reinforce your said beliefs from the Bible so that they can begin to understand why Evangelicals believe what we do.

There are a number of books and mp3’s I want to recommend to help you prepare for your evangelism towards the Latter-day Saint community. James White has written two of the best books on Mormonism that I’ve encountered: Is the Mormon My Brother? and Letters to a Mormon Elder. The first is a systematic look at LDS beliefs organized by their authority structure. The second is more a reference and contains a series of fictitious letters between James and a Mormon elder on his mission on a wide variety of topics. Both are invaluable to have on your shelf. Jerald (now deceased) and Sandra Tanner’s Utah Lighthouse Ministry also has any number of books, and a unique set of documentation that are useful for those in-depth conversations with a Latter-day Saint. Walter Martin’s (deceased) Kingdom of the Cults is also a great reference to have on the LDS faith, along with other spin-offs of Christianity and other world religions. At the AOMin website there are a number of good articles, mp3’s and DVD’s on Mormonism that can greatly aid you. “The Witnessing to Mormons Seminar” (#482MP3) is a personal favorite that I listen to each year before handing out tracts at the Mormon Easter Pageant at the temple in Mesa, AZ. Check out the articles section of our site, and the store has mp3’s and dvd’s on Mormonism that will greatly assist you. Our site address: http://www.aomin.org.

I have some friends in Maryland who may be able to help you in your studies of Mormonism. I’ll shoot over an email to them and get back to you as soon as I can. Also, feel free to ask me any questions on the subject. It would be my pleasure. I will be praying for you as you continue to shine the light of the gospel to the Latter-day Saint community.

Because of Christ,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin

Foreordination and human responsibility

2010-01-07T07:00:00.000-07:00

Hello Ben,

I appreciate your desire to seek out the truth even on difficult issues such as these. I’ll do my best to answer your questions in their entirety.

You asked: “Did God create beings He knew would rebel against Him? And if so, how can He hold them accountable for that rebellion?”

Yes, God created beings He knew would rebel against Him. On a related note, I would also like to address how God knew the future before the foundation of the world, and I think you‘ll see how this becomes directly relevant to your questions. Was God simply looking down through the corridors of time, much like a fortune-teller with her crystal ball? Or does the Lord have another basis for knowing what happens in the future? I believe the Bible answers this very question.

Isaiah 44:6-8 reads: “6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. 7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place. 8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'“” (NASB).

This is a text I use fairly often when talking with Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also with Open Theists, oddly enough. In these few verses our God states in more ways than one that He is the only true and living god that exists. More than that, He offers a challenge to the many false gods to declare to Him the events of the past and their purpose for happening. God then challenges idols to declare events that have yet to happen. I believe there is a strong implication that just as the Lord established past events and the ancient nation He likewise establishes the future.

Isaiah says in 46:8-11, “8"Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. 9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.” (NASB).

Saying similar things as the previous passage we looked at, but also that He declares the end from the beginning so that His purpose will be established according to His good pleasure. He has spoken and it will happen just as He desires. His plans always come to pass.

Next, I’d encourage you to read Isaiah 40-50 … but until then … this section in Isaiah not only presents a series of tests to demonstrate that He is the only true god, but also to serve as reassurance for this fact. Among His many tests are the constant reminder that He alone is the Creator of all things, and I believe that His many mentions of ordaining the past, present and future must be considered an act of God’s creative handiwork (creation).

Romans 8:28 is a passage well known amongst Christians down through the ages of the Church because of it’s reassurance of God’s total control over all things: “8 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (NASB). This is comforting not only because God is watching out for the Christian’s best interests but because everything that happens is according to God’s purposes. Think how the first century Church viewed this text in light of the intense persecution brought by the Jews and the Romans, and the text becomes all the more relevant. Even in the face of persecution our Lord is in control because He has ordained what will happen, and His ends will be accomplished for the betterment of His people.

What I have attempted to do up to this point is demonstrate that the Creator has ordained all events in time and space: the past, present and future. But I have one other point to make regarding good and evil. Going back to Isaiah, we read in 45:6-7, “6 That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, 7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.” (NASB). He forms light and darkness, causing well-being and calamity. Another text, Proverbs 6:4 reads: “4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.” (NASB). This brings out a very important fact: God ordains all things, good and evil - evil the wicked for the day of doom.

We are nearly ready to directly address your question, but first we need to answer one other question: if God has ordained good and evil events, how does that all play out? In an attempt to better explain our theology, Calvinists differentiate between first and secondary causes. God is the first cause of all things that happen. In other words, He has ordained everything that takes place. Secondary causes are the means which He uses to accomplish His ordained decree.

So, did God “create” sin? I suppose it depends on how you are defining the term “create.” He certainly ordained the existence of sin and evil, but it was Satan and human beings that actualized, or brought about, its existence.

How is it that human beings are held accountable for their sins in light of the fact that God has ordained all things? A simple answer would be that it is human beings that sin and not God. But going further, human beings have what is known as compatibilist freedom. That is, that though God is sovereign in ordaining everything that comes to pass, man is responsible for what he does. This is seen in 3 key texts of Scripture: Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10:5-13, and Acts 4:27-28.

Genesis 50:20, “20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” (NASB)

In this rather awkward scenario where Joseph’s brothers are pleading with him to not be punished as a result of their wicked behavior, we have a clear recognition that God had purpose and intent in the evil they had done. What was that purpose? To preserve many people alive. Joseph’s brothers meant evil but God meant it for good. It is important to point out that though God has ordained even Joseph’s brothers’ evil deeds, they are not let off the hook for their behavior. For evidence of this take a look at what Jacob said to each of his sons on his deathbed.

Isaiah 10:5-13, “5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, 6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. 7 Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations. 8 For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? 9 "Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus? 10 "As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, 11 Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" 12 So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." 13 For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants,” (NASB).

Assyria had evil intent to destroy and cut off many nations, but not against Jerusalem. Yet God chose to use Assyria as the rod of His anger and punish the Jews. Once finished, the Lord then punishes Assyria for what they did to Jerusalem. The simple lesson from this passage is that God controls all things but we are still held accountable for our actions.

Finally, Acts 4:27-28, “27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB).

Even the Son of God had an appointed time to face abuse and death at the hands of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel. We know from the Scriptures that all these have been held accountable for their actions. But think about the many decisions that led to the experiences that Christ faced. Between Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the Israelites there were an innumerable number of decisions. The first century also came thousands of years after the time of the creation … and I wonder how many choices and actions were done leading up to the time of Christ? If God did not ordain even the choices of men I suggest to you that ordaining specific events of Christ’s life would have been impossible. The Lord is either utterly sovereign over the universe - including time and space - or He is not sovereign at all. These are our two options.

One final question you had asked was whether God created beings He knew would be destined for eternal punishment? I believe that He did - Romans 9 talks a bit about why God did this very thing.

I’ll wrap it up there, but please let me know if you’d like to discuss this further or if you have any further questions.

Praise God for His rulership over all things,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin

Which gospel to believe?

2009-12-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

I had the honor of responding to a recent email entirely about the gospel. I hope this is encouraging for you =)

---------------------------------------------------------------

I am not out to start a fight. I just want both sides to the story. I am not a fan of tit for tat ridicule I see on both Protestant and catholic blogs. I just want to make an informed decision based on fact and reason. I am a fallen away christian, but I have decided religion should be the most important thing in my life, so I am searching for answers. 1.)evn though the 7 books in the catholic bible(Judith, Tobit, etc. are not in prot. ones, are they the work of God? I must add I found comfort and felt closer after i read them. Is that wrong. I met a priest who was a nice guy, and he told me he didn't care what denomination I was, he just wanted me to be closer to God. He was not anti-prot. as I thought they all were, and he told me to keep going to my Baptist church. The guys I read on the cath. apoli. on the internet were down right mean, as were alot of the prot. Are we not all followers of Jesus? Very confused. Even alot of the prot. guys were ripping each other. Mt head is spinning. I don't know who to believe?

---------------------------------------------------------------

My response:

Paul,

First of all, let me just say that I am honored to be able to respond to your email because you touch on the most important issue in life: true religion.

I’ll respond to your email as best I can but the more I know about what specific questions you have and what issues you are struggling with the better I’ll be able to interact with you.

Contrary to liberals who are ever ready to share their opinions, conservatives on both sides of the Protestant and Catholic isles would argue that the differences between the two perspectives are of the utmost importance. We are not talking about peripheral issues that have no meaningful impact, but rather issues that focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics would say that the Protestant gospel is false, just as Protestants would say that the Roman Catholic gospel is false.

Now to the main thrust of your email: Which of these two religions is true, and which possesses the true gospel of God?

Paul the Apostle began his letter to the saints at Rome by describing the gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16, NASB). If we are to believe that Paul was here correct in his assertion that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe, then having a right view of the gospel must be our foremost concern. All other issues pale in comparison because it is only through the gospel that God has chosen to save sinners from a life and the consequences of our sins. Were it not for the Lord’s intervention, we would be hopelessly left to bear the guilt and punishment for our sins.

While there are many important issues dividing Protestants and Roman Catholics, I’ll spend most of my time in this email focusing on the differences between the two gospels. I will also offer a Biblical defense of the Protestant view of the gospel from the Bible.

The great divide that exists between the Protestant and Roman Catholic gospel is centered around the doctrine of justification. So I ask the question: how is a sinner justified, or declared not guilty of his sins, before God?

The Catholic catechism defines justification this way: “The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1987). We see here a summarized statement that sinful man is justified through faith and through baptism. It is important to remember that justification and sanctification are considered one and the same by Rome, therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that justification is considered an ongoing process, completed only after death and Purgatory. Ludwig Ott has this to say on the subject: “Without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary for achieving justification" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Rockford Ill.: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974, p.262). A sinner may never fulfill all the requirements to be justified; it may increase, decrease and even be lost. The Catholic Catechism also teaches that we may increase in our sanctification through our merits. The Holy Spirit gives prevenient grace that enables all of mankind to respond and cooperate with God’s grace. Justification is then a cooperative effort between God’s grace, which makes a way of salvation possible, but in the end it is up to man’s will and personal merits that earn salvation for him.

By contrast, the Protestant view of justification is solely a work of God’s grace and not a cooperative effort between God and man. Because of Adam all of mankind is spiritually dead to the things of God, unable even to respond to the gospel. Man is so affected by sin that he cannot repent or believe in the Savior. The Holy Spirit must give grace for believers to respond, though a key difference here with Rome is that when the Holy Spirit gives grace to a sinner it accomplishes the task to its fullness. I could say it another way: God never fails to save a sinner whom He has decided to save. Through the hearing of the gospel (the message of Christ) the Holy Spirit raises the dead sinner to spiritual life, who then believes in Jesus Christ and is justified of his sins. Because of our complete inability to save ourselves, or to do anything pleasing in God’s sight (even repentance and faith), Protestants emphasize that salvation is by grace alone. Justification is a legal declaration made by God in His law court at a point in time, and not a process. We are not justified by works of any kind, be that works of Law or personal merits, but solely by faith. Therefore, the basis for our right-standing before God is not because of our own merits but because of the merits of Jesus Christ, imputed to us (considered to be ours) through faith. Justification can not be increased or lost because one‘s right-standing before the Lord is not based on man‘s work. This is a completely different idea compared to Rome’s view of an infused righteousness within man as an ongoing process.

Where in the Bible do we see this view of justification by faith alone, and not by works at all? Firstly, I would strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians because they are on the subject of justification.

In Romans, Paul spends the first few chapters demonstrating that all men are deserving of the wrath of God because of sin. Both Jews and Gentiles are addressed in these chapters, and Paul makes sure to point out that both works of the Law and personal merits cannot make up for the consequences of sin. We are completely lost, unable to have a right position before our Creator. Then finally, in Romans 3:21-31 we have one of the most beautiful sections in all of Scripture explaining how God saves dead sinners through faith. In verse 28, Paul writes, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (NASB). Or again, Romans 5:1, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (NASB).If Paul was going to add anything necessary to ensure our justification he would have mentioned in here.

Next, Paul continues on his argument in chapter 4:1-8: “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.””

Abraham, the Father of our faith, was not justified by works but through faith. The righteousness of God was made known to Abraham through faith. Paul makes the contrast between the one who works and the one who does not work, and it is to the one who does not work that is justified of his sins. God justifies the ungodly, not the godly. He credits righteousness to those not working but having faith in Christ. The contrast between faith and works must be noted because they are given as though polar opposites.

To the Galatians, Paul wrote this: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” (Galatians 2:16, NASB).

The distinction between the Protestant - and I believe, Biblical - gospel with the gospel taught by Roman Catholicism is immense. The Counter-Reformation led by the Roman Church completely reject this Biblical understanding of the gospel in their Council of Trent and gives us a good idea of how Rome views the Evangelical perspective; Canon IX: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

In conclusion, Protestants agree with the Scriptures that say sinners are justified through faith alone, and not by works. Rome says that we are justified through faith and works.

Obviously, I’ve given you a lot to think about so I’ll leave it here and eagerly await your response.

Because of the finished work of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin

Free Will and 2 Peter 3:9

2009-11-30T07:00:00.001-07:00

The following is my response to an AOMin email. Enjoy =)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Jason,

Thanks for your email and your interest in the subject of Calvinism. The single greatest point I would like to begin with is one that you stated in your email: "I've just always assumed we have free will." In other words, one of your presuppositions is that men have "free will." Two questions seem to logically follow this statement: (1) How do you define "free will;" (2) Upon what basis do you say that men have "free will?"

In my experience, most folks tend to define "free will" to mean the following: an inherent ability within sinful man to be able to spiritually accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only does the Bible not define the term "free will" in this way, but it simply does not define it at all. I would suggest that the Bible very clearly teaches the opposite of the definition I listed above. In fact, the Word of God emphatically teaches that because of our fallen state we are unable to repent and believe, or perform any spiritually-pleasing act before God's sight.

Because I want to zone in on your question relatively soon, I'll list a handful of passages on the subject with a book recommendation or two for further study. Ephesians 2:1-4, John 6:37-44, Romans 3:10-11, Romans 9:10-18. Two books that I would recommend to you are The Potter's Freedom and Drawn by the Father both authored by James White.

Now onto your question: "How does a Calvinist explain 2 Peter 3:9? It says God doesn't want "anyone to perish", "but everyone to come to repentance". How can that be if God has predetermined who will perish, and who will be saved? Unless he is drawing everyone to him, which can't be true." If you will allow me, note that this question is only indirectly related to man's ability, or lack thereof, to spiritually come to Christ in faith. However, I think it is a perfectly valid question regarding the Calvinist perspective on predestination: If God has foreordained those whom He would save, how can He also desire every person who has ever lived or ever will live to be saved?

I'll give you my conclusion first, then explain my reasoning in how I interpret this passage. My conclusion is simply that God does not desire to save every person who has ever lived or ever will live. How can I say this in light of 2 Peter 3:9? I think the answer is actually in the text ... but we must pay attention to the pronouns.

The Apostle Peter starts off this epistle addressing a particular audience when he writes: "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1, NASB). This same audience is being addressed in chapter 3, but a contrast between a second group is made throughout the chapter. After reminding this group of Saints that this is his second letter written for them (vs 1), he then introduces a distinct group of people he describes as "mockers," "scoffers," and "ungodly men." This second group, a group of unbelieving men, are referred to using pronouns such as "they" and "them."

After such a clear distinction can be seen between the Christians ("beloved," "you") and the non-Christians ("their," "they") we arrive at verse 9. If you follow the pronouns, and the distinction that Peter himself is making in the text, the questions can then be asked: Who is God patient towards? Who does God not desire to perish? The simple answer is that God is patient towards the "you," and He does not desire the "any" and "all" to perish. The question then becomes: Who is the "you," "any," and "all?" Without inserting a foreign meaning onto the text (commonly called "eisegesis") Peter is referring to Christians. God is patient in His coming for the sake of His elect people, and desires that all of His chosen ones will be saved. Other explanations of this text make the "you," "any," and "all" mean something that is foreign to the context.

I hope this was helpful for you. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further, or have any further questions.

Because of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin

Trouble Loving My Enemies

2009-09-02T02:58:00.001-07:00

Do you have someone in your life that is difficult to be around because of some negative aspects to their personality? For you, this might be an acquaintance you’re forced to bump into every so often, a coworker, a friend’s girlfriend (or boyfriend), or even someone who frequents the same Starbucks as you at the same times. That one person could be described as rude, overbearing, mean and nasty, or may even touch on the verge of hateful. I have such a person in my life; a person who easily fits into the descriptions listed above.

I say all of this, and it really does sadden me that I have this kind of relationship with this person. Someone who acts this way cannot be called my friend, and I don’t think it a stretch to recognize that this person is my enemy. Not by choice – I don’t think I would choose to ever have an enemy with a fellow human being. Yet I find myself at odds with this person on a regular basis and for no good reason. The amount of thought and energy I have spent to try and understand why this individual treats me so is beyond me, and I am at my wits end.

Today I found myself praying to God: “God, why does so-and-so hate me without cause?” Then again: “God, I need Your help if I am to truly love my enemy.”

That is my goal today. To focus on what it means to love an enemy and how this can be done.

During my internal battle (and it is a terrible onslaught of a war) the Holy Spirit brought to mind our Lord’s statement from the Sermon on the Mount:

“43You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48, NASB).

Once having read this passage the Holy Spirit would never again let me off the hook with my enemies =). It seems clear to me from the earlier context of this chapter that we are not to let folks take advantage of us simply because we are Christians, and yet from these verses we are required to love those who would try to. This is very much the circumstance that I find myself in. A person I am forced to interact with on a consistent basis who treats me poorly, though unprovoked. How am I to respond to such treatment, and what is my responsibility as a Christian?

Beyond doubt, you can rest assured that I am to not be taken advantage of. Any amount of kindness or compromising should not include being walked all over, or slapped around. Rather, as Jesus provides a handful of unique examples, we may use creative means to bring out the shame in what they are trying to do to us without crossing a line, thus behaving sinfully like our enemies. My remaining sin would love it if our responsibilities ended there, because I could then rejoice at justice being done, without sinning, but not … “going the extra mile” … as it were =).

We are not only to avoid abuse or creatively point out sinfulness, I believe we are to love those trying to do these things to us. This does not simply mean an emotion – although an element of understanding and compassion should be at play here. After all, we would act no differently apart from God’s free grace! We are to truly love our enemies. This is what I find a difficult task: I must not become like my enemy. I am not permitted at any point to hate this person in my heart, thus becoming a murderer in God’s eyes. I cannot attempt to harm this person’s reputation, though this has been attempted by this person. I certainly cannot treat my enemy poorly.

Above all this, I am to do good to my enemy! Even when I know it might be shoved back in my face, I am to do good to this person. The thought of doing this does not please me in the slightest. Why do you think that is? Iiii think it’s because deep down in my innermost being I don’t believe my enemy deserves to be treated well by me. There it is. There it is. My true thoughts and intents are revealed there, and this is one reason why I struggle in loving this enemy. Isn’t it the point that none of us deserve grace – that is what makes grace … grace. It’s free. It can’t be earned. Grace is undeserved.

Since I received free grace from the Lord God, not because of anything in me, then shouldn’t I do likewise for others?

God’s Holy Spirit brought one other verse to mind:

“If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:18, NASB).

The scenario that the Apostle Paul describes here is a possible scenario (“if”), but is a noble goal, nonetheless. “So far as it depends on me” Christians are to be at peace with everyone. The question then is: Have I done everything I can to make peace with my enemy? Up to this point, God has not ordained that I get along with this person, which may mean there isn’t anything I can do to gain my enemy’s favor. However, this does not mean that I should not try everything to make peace. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Thanks for reading ya'll,
Rusty

A Government Option Becomes the Only Option

2009-08-17T03:13:00.000-07:00

President Obama is out and about, traveling through the Southwestern states, attempting to convince Americans of the validity of his health care reform ideas. If you’ve been following the news at all you know that many of these town-hall meetings with the President and state senators aren’t going overly well. People are getting angry, so much so that these events have turned into shouting matches. While I am all for disagreements being handled in a civil manner, I can’t entirely blame people for being angry.

Health insurance is already too expensive and is expected to become even more expensive! Anyone who thinks through the consequences of instituting a national health insurance company for 47 million people knows that no private insurance company can hope to compete with the government! Why is this so? Because no insurance company in the United States insures 47 million people! The government will literally put private insurance companies out of business. I’ve wondered what the insurance company I work for will do if and when a national insurance company comes about – I can’t speak dogmatically at this point, but I am willing to bet that we’ll pull out of dealing with health insurance altogether.

Obama claims that he can provide health insurance for 47 million uninsured Americans – and all who desire to switch to the government option – while only taxing the “wealthiest Americans,” and on top of all this the costs of health care will be reduced. How in the world is he going to accomplish all this? Does anyone seriously believe that by taxing the super rich we can cover the enormous costs of health care for 47 million people? Doesn’t it seem logical that health care costs will increase because the bill will no longer be through private companies but now the bill would be sent to the government with a seemingly endless supply of money?

Do you know the worst part about this plan? 47 million people would just be the beginning of who utilizes this government insurance. Large corporations would stop providing private insurance deals because “well, we’re already being taxed by the government for insurance … why not use that instead?” I cannot even begin to imagine the domino effect this would have on the insurance and health care industry. Eventually, the government would end up as the majority insurance provider to which most Americans would become dependent on. Taxes would increase if the government insures 47 million people; I don’t think we are ready to consider how much taxes would increase to pay for 300+ million people. The potential costs are staggering.

Sunday afternoon I read an article in The New York Times that explained the story of an English gentleman who needed to make an appointment with a doctor. He called his government approved doctor’s office to make an appointment, and they estimated they could see him in 4 months. FOUR MONTHS! But then he informed them, “Oh, I’m a private, not a public, patient.” The receptionist responded, “Terrific! We can fit you in tomorrow.” England’s national health insurance has been the most important cause to decrease the quality of their health care. The English government has limited funds and therefore must ration health care to the extent that wait times are outrageously long. But as we see in this instance, those who choose to use private insurance are able to achieve quality care in a timely manner.

It is one thing to want every citizen to have health insurance. But using the government is not the answer. What we really need is meaningful health care and health insurance reform that will allow transitions for policies between jobs and/or insurance companies. I think it’s time for our President to consider reforming the private sector rather than increasing nationwide government dependence. I think the President is beginning to see how unpopular his plan is amongst the average citizen. One can only hope.

Rusty

Conversation with a Latter-day Saint

2009-08-10T02:34:00.002-07:00

[The following is part of a continuing conversation between a Latter-day Saint (David) and myself about the Trinity and absolute monotheism. David's portion appears first then followed by my response.]

Rusty:

I did a little research regarding those passages in Isaiah … Here Jehovah (Jesus Christ), is declaring that he is the God of Israel. He always has been the God of Israel and always will be their God … The only God they will ever have anything to do with … After reading Isaiah 43:10 are you concluding that the Father and the Son are one personage?

They are one in purpose, perfectly united ... If you're not one, then you're not mine ...

I hope we don't wind up citing the passage ... "God is a spirit... " Some like to cite that verse and put a big period at the end of it. However, there is no period at the end; the verse goes on to say … "and those that worship me, must worship me in spirit and in truth."

In other words, in these verses, the meaning of the word "spirit" refers to truth and righteousness. The old explanation goes like this: If the word "spirit" in these verses meant "no body; no parts" in essence a mist or a cloud, then the second verse "worshiping in spirit", would mean that we would have to leave our bodies at home to worship him! Yikes!

Here are some thoughts about the passages from Isaiah: Persons who object to the Church say, "What about Isaiah 43:10 where it says there were no Gods before Jehovah and will be none after him? Jesus and his Father have to be the same, and there is only one God." Let us look at that verse.

“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)

In chapter 43, God is talking about the relationship between him and the Israelites. He uses the analogy of a trial in which he calls witnesses. In verse 3, he declares he is the God of Israel, and in subsequent verses he reassures the Israelites of this relationship. In verse 9 he challenges the nations of the earth to bring forth their witnesses of their gods, and in verse 10 he declares that the Israelites are his witnesses of his work and of the salvation which he is providing. Not only are they his witnesses but his servants because they do his work among the children of the earth. As his servants, he wants the Israelites to understand he is their God. In verse 10 when he said, "before me there was no God formed" he is saying he has always been the God of Israel. When he said, "neither shall their be [any] after me" he is saying he will always be the God of Israel. Thus, we see the context of that verse is that Jehovah always has been and always will be the God of Israel. That verse does not address the question whether Jesus and the Father are the same or are separate. As mentioned above, since Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, it is appropriate to refer to them as "one God".

Those who object also ask, "How about Isaiah 44:8?" Let us look at that verse. “Hear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)

This verse is a continuation of the "trial" dialogue we just discussed. Jehovah is the God of Israel, and "there is no God" besides Him. As with the other verse, this passage concerns the relationship between God and Israel and does not address the nature of the Godhead.

By the way, back to the mission field in South America. You would not believe how many people gave me that "deer in the headlights look", when my companion and I asked them who the Savior was praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane! If the Father and the Son were one personage!?

Take care,
David

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

David,

Thanks again for the reply. I apologize for the length of this email, but found that I couldn't do justice by subtracting from its current length. Please read this over carefully as each point will be important to our discussion.

I think it might be helpful for both of us to make sure we are on the same page in our understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly, I would summarize this doctrine as follows: Within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coequal and coeternal Persons; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

There are 3 essential foundations to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Bible supports each of these foundations. First, absolute monotheism - there is only one true God in existence. Second, there are three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Third, the three divine Persons are coequal and coeternal. This means that the three Persons have existed from eternity as divine Persons (not simply their matter having eternally existed). This also means that the three Persons are coequal in nature; they all share the One Being of God. Each of the three Persons are equally God. It would be inappropriate to try to divide God's Being up into thirds, like a pie chart. No, rather, each divine Person is fully God and shares the one Being of God.

A helpful analogy of understanding what is meant by "Being" and "Person" is crucial when discussing this definition. Let me begin by using my cell phone as an example. My cell phone has being. It exists. But it has no personality. There is no person sharing its being. Now, I can ask my cell phone how it is doing, but no matter how much I talk to the phone it will never once respond to me. Why? Because it can't reason. The cell phone has no person within its being to recognize itself, or communicate. Now, if you will allow me, I'll use you, David, as an example. You are one being, and within your being there is only one personality sharing your being: the person of David. God also has one being. However, rather than one person sharing His being, He has 3 persons within His one Being.

What the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same Person. The Father is the not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father – or any which way you want to put it. The Bible teaches the three persons are distinct. Each of these Persons can say “I” of Himself, and can address the other Persons. So when you mention that on your mission you encountered folks who were befuddled by Christ praying to the Father, the answer is simple: Christ was praying to the Father. Christ was not praying to Himself. Yes, that means that the three distinct Persons, sharing the one Being of God, communicate with one another.

One final note, and then I will be done with definitions =). I agree with you that the three distinct Persons are one in purpose, but this is not what I mean when I say that there is only one true God. I mean that there is only one true God in existence, and not three gods or three beings (or more).

You seem to hint in your preemptive strike against John 4:24 ... =) ... that the Father and the Son are separate beings, separate persons, each with their own respective bodies, and therefore “God is spirit” cannot mean that God is spirit, but rather that God has a physical body. This is an important point of disagreement between us. However, I would point to John 4:24, because Christ is talking with the Samaritan woman (which was not a reputable practice for the Jews) about the fact that since God is spirit the worship of Him is not dependent on the location ... as would soon be revealed with the coming of the Holy Spirit. "Spirit" does not mean "truth and righteousness." Spirit means spirit, and in fact "God is spirit" is literally what the Greek says here and is a qualitative description of God's very nature. Well, what is a spirit then? Jesus, when he rose from the grave, spoke to his alarmed disciples by reminding them that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones," and was painstakingly clear that He was physically raised from the dead and not a spirit.

The trouble I think Latter-day Saints sometimes have with understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is that you think of God as an exalted man, with a body as tangible as man's (LDS teachings). The Bible clearly says that God is not a man, but rather His very essence is spiritual, and therefore is not a human being.

You might ask, "Well how can God manage to exist like that? I don't understand..." I don't believe the finite can fully understand the infinite. In other words, we are limited by time and space, but God is not. You and I are limited in our power and our abilities, but God is not. So just because we don't fully grasp something about God does not mean it is not true. The question you need to ask yourself is: does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Each of the three foundations I listed above are crucial, and I believe it is on these that we must focus our conversation.

Isaiah 43:10 is one text that supports the Biblical teaching of absolute monotheism. I do not believe that this passage, or the section in Isaiah 40-50, is simply teaching that God is the only God for the Israelites to worship. No, the reason the Israelites were to limit their worship to God is because He is the only true God in existence. This section of Isaiah is, as you rightly describe it, the trial of the false gods. God says in so many ways that He is the only true God in existence. When we consider Isaiah 43:10, He says of Himself, “Before me there was no God formed.” The word “formed” means “to create.” But as the passage continues we discover that there will be no Gods after God either.

The LDS faith teaches contrary to this very text: there were gods formed before God, and there will be gods formed after God.

In closing, I have 2 questions for you:

(1) In light of the fact that God says that there were no gods created before Him, and there will be no gods created after Him, how can you believe that there were, and there will be?

(2) How can this passage make sense from an LDS perspective, considering that “LORD” refers to Jehovah (Jesus) and “God” refers to Elohim (Father)? In other words, if we were to interpret this passage in light of LDS thinking it would read as follows: “Before Me [Jesus] there was no [Father] formed, And there will be none after Me.” (Brackets MINE).

I look forward to your response.

Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin

Lunch-Time Conversations

2009-08-07T04:17:00.001-07:00

There are some occasions that seem to be random but really aren’t. They may start off by recurring intermittently but given enough time become daily activities. One such occasion is something I eagerly await every day, and it happens around noontime. Oftentimes I will get off work and have approximately half an hour to kill before I make the trek to my next job. During this timeframe there are 2 customers who visit us on their lunch breaks to sip on coffee or tea.

My interactions with these 2 middle-aged gentlemen began by sitting down on one of the comfy chairs adjacent the three other comfy chairs. It seems to be their custom to invite those rambunctious enough to participate in with their conversations. I was invited to one of their conversations and the tradition has continued for a month now. Each of us brings a book that we are presently reading – which is a commonality that cannot be overlooked. In fact, the desire for learning, reasoning with one another, even debate is something we all share. Most of all, we each have a strong desire for good conversation.

Earlier in the week I was able to briefly share some thoughts from the biography about Jimmy Carter, but ended up learning a great deal from these men who lived through the 70’s.

Movie recommendations are also an integral part of our dialogue each day. On Monday they mentioned two films that are, according to them, classics and a “must see.” The first is “The Avengers,” followed by “Glenn Gary, Glenn Ross.” Yesterday they were anxious to see if I had made time to watch both the films. I chuckled and told them that I’d order them this weekend.

Customers like these make my time at Starbucks completely worthwhile, and this is precisely the kind of “third place” environment we are famous for providing as a company. This is why we have succeeded as a coffee and tea shop while others have failed. There is something about meeting friends, family or even strangers to talk about what is most important to you. The closest resemblance in history seems to be the Salons (not for hair) in France leading up to the French Revolution. People would gather to discuss and debate social, political and religious ideas.

I hope that I might act as salt and light to these men, choosing my words carefully because I represent the God of the universe.

Rusty

The beauty of the Ant

2009-08-03T19:39:00.001-07:00

The other day walked by an ant hill and my first response was to cover the hill with my feet. For some reason I decided to take a closer look and I discovered one single ant left outside the now-closed hill. This ant began to take a single grain of sand at a time away from the covered hill in order to reopen the passage way. It was an instant epiphany! This ant was not taking any orders. It was not taking time to decide if it wanted to do the job that I gave it. It was not working for any perceived future reward. It was doing what it was wired to do with all diligence.

"Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise..." (Proverbs 6:6)

No Such Thing as a Hyphenated American

2009-07-31T04:09:00.000-07:00

This might come as a shock to some of you, but I am politically conservative. *gasp* !!!!!!! Like a good conservative Republican I try to be aware of current events, and even go so far as to listen to political talk-radio while driving. My two favorite shows happen to be at the same time on different stations: Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved. El Rushbo is pretty arrogant and a bit obnoxious, but ya know what? More often than not he is extremely right, and he falls on the conservative side of things far more often than his colleagues. Medved provides more thought-provoking topics of conversation, at least I think so =). In fact, there are three books I’ve read because of his recommendation: a book on the Crusades, his own The 10 Big Lies About America (which I just finished), and a book about Jimmy Carter and the 1970’s.

There are literally dozens of topics that I may end up blogging about over the next few weeks from “The 10 Big Lies About America,” but I wanted to focus on just one of them today. Michael Medved has a chapter responding to the myth that “America Has Always Been a Multicultural Society.” In this chapter he quotes part of a speech made by the beloved Theodore Roosevelt in 1915:

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans. Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all…. The one absolutely certain way of brining this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.” (Pgs. 103-104).

What cut me to the quick was when I learned that this speech was made to a group of Irish Catholics. The annotation I made in the margins of this page reads: “Never thought about it that way before.” Honestly, I hadn’t. Having been raised in the public school system, and taken an innumerable amount of college courses, I guess I’ve been more influenced to believe that one’s national identity is not first as an American citizen, but rather in one’s ethnic heritage.

Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with “celebrating” one’s heritage, or identifying and appreciating one’s familial background. But when I think about my friends, classmates and coworkers, and how they choose to identify themselves, it isn’t primarily as an American. Many blacks overemphasize their African-ness. Many whites overemphasize their European-ness. The problem arises when one is more proud of where they’ve come from rather than where they are.

“Cultural Diversity in Education” was one perhaps the single greatest waste of time in my entire life. I remember the professor asking the class one day: “How many of you think racism is a major problem in America today?” Everyone’s hand shot up, except mine. Immediately, I could feel the scornful looks from various individuals in the classroom, including the professor who couldn’t believe her eyes. Puzzled, she asked me why I didn’t think racism was not a major problem in America. I answered: “Because the vast majority of Americans are openly opposed to racism, the Federal and state governments are opposed to racism, and we now have laws protecting against racial discrimination. Sure, there are racists in America, but they are widely condemned throughout the land.” My professor happened to be black, and tried to hide just how offended she was, but continue on with our conversation. “Well, I have been mistreated by many people because of my black-ness,” she said. I expressed my sympathies, but reiterated that the greater majority are opposed to people thinking less of someone simply because of the color of their skin.

That group of students was essential in pointing out to me just how much racism is not a problem. Americans are so opposed to racism that all education majors are required to take courses like “Cultural Diversity in Education.” If we would simply recognize that racism was a huge problem in America, and at the same time admit that we have – for the most part – overcome racism we would begin to stop thinking of people in terms of ethnicity at all. Shouldn’t our goal be to instill in our fellow citizens that we are all equal in value because of our shared humanity, rather than because of our different ethnic backgrounds? Why is it that blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians or any other ethnicity are all equal? Is it not because we are all human? If you’re like me, you’re thinking to yourself, “Yup. No duh, Case.” Haha. The problem is that many liberals do not think this way. It’s true that they believe all peoples are equal in value but they arrive at this conclusion by celebrating ethnicities, rather than recognizing ethnicities all share a common humanity.

Three of four years ago I began to take great interest in my own family history and ethnic heritage. Part of my heritage is Irish, and I am uber proud of my Irish-ness (just ask Scott, who was forced to listen to hours upon hours of Irish tunes on repeat). I have made the mistake of focusing too much on my ethnicity, rather than identifying myself primarily as an American. Never fear, I’m not about to stop enjoying my Irish-ness, but I do plan on clarifying that I am an American first, and Irish second. My loyalty is to this nation, which still represents the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Thanks for reading this American’s thoughts,
Rustyrust

The Half-Blood Prince

2009-07-24T04:30:00.000-07:00

The beginning portions of this post will not contain spoilers for HBP, and I’ll give a warning before the spoilers are let loose =)

July 14th was one of the most memorable movie-going experiences I’ve had. Myself and Emily, and Cory and Melissa waited in line for the showing all day. We arrived around 10am, chick-filet for breakfast, starbucks, and then joined the line outside. It was only a few moments when the manager came out to let everyone inside – boy oh boy were we thankful we could be inside since it was already beginning to boil.

Our group was 3rd in line and we had a bench; our day was off to a fantastic start! Within a few minutes Melissa and I decided to get into our costumes, me into my Quidditch costume, Melissa into a Hogwarts school uniform costume. Gotta say that they were the best costumes, by far =).

We brought a Harry Potter 20-Questions game, a simplified magic-like Harry Potter board/card game which we spent 40 minutes trying to figure out and was much too difficult to play, but a fun amount of time nonetheless. Of course we made friends with our fellow waiters-in-line and ended up playing a group game of Silent Football. It was hilarious, haha. I can tell you right now it musta been quite the sight seeing adults dressed in Harry Potter costumes spitting at each other or thrusting elbow’s in one another’s face, all the while remaining fairly silent =).

Our auditorium was allowed in to be seated at 6pm. Not only were we able to save enough seats for the rest of our party but we had a wonderful spot right in the middle.

12:01am grew ever closer and you could feel the electricity begin to build in the auditorium. People were excited, and with good reason! I think it was 2 years ago that OoTP came out?

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was overwhelmingly my favorite of the Potter films. Many non-die-hard fans, but who’ve followed the movies, have said that they wished there was more action. But die-hard fans, and those who’ve read the books, loved it.

What made the HBP so much better? The most noticeable improvement was the actors’ and actresses’ ability to perform. Their acting had improved with each new film, and was incredibly noticeable here. My brother, Dvorák, who is not Radcliffe’s biggest fan, said even he did a great job.

SPOILERS TO FOLLOW! THOSE WHO HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIES AND READ ALL SEVEN BOOKS SHOULD CONTINUE AT THE SPOILER BREAK – (Will appear in caps below)!!!!!!!

At this point I’ve seen the HBP twice, and my favorite part as of now is when Ron is overcome by Ramilda Vane’s (sp?) love potion. His stupefied expression and that stupid grin kept me laughing. Then there was Radcliffe who got me laughing once he took the “Liquid Luck” potion. Sitting on that over-sized stool in Hagrid’s hut, clapping and smiling was truly the equivalent of roflberry pwncakes!

Harry and Ginny’s romance has begun full swing, and I’m sure all the girls loved that =). Hey, I did too! She sure is aggressive, but I’m pretty sure Harry needed someone like her. Those of us who know the ending of book 7 are probably prone to agree with me?

What I felt was lacking most of all were key elements from the spectacular battle scene near the end. I’ll need to re-read the book, but the way I remember that scene in my head was with more Death Eaters. Also, where was Hagrid?! Was he burning in his hut?! I was hoping to see countless spells bounce off of his half-giant thick skin. Still, the scene was enjoyable.

I completely forgot about Bill and Fleur. Also, here’s a question to the reader: do you think that Lupin and Nymphadora’s romance was too revealed in this movie? Should they have waited to develop it until they reveal it more fully in book 7?

END OF SPOILERS

Honestly, I cannot wait to find an excuse to see this movie again. Maybe I ought to be more clever and just come up with something =). This will undoubtedly be the best-selling blockbuster of the year.

Thanks for reading ya’ll,
The Rusted One

My List of Sins

2009-07-17T03:14:00.001-07:00

I determined that I would not write again about Spiritual-Mindedness until I have finished that fantastic read, but it is completely affecting what is on my mind (no pun intended) and therefore you can expect my articles on spiritual subjects to be heavily influenced because of what John Owen has to say =) …

One of the recent realizations the Lord has made new to me is that I cannot stop sinning unless I have the aid of the Holy Spirit. When I first became a Calvinist, one of the new questions I asked was: “So if God saves apart from the cooperation of man, does he also sanctify without our cooperation? Or is my personal holiness dependent upon me?” Quite an interesting question, eh?

Eventually, I came to understand that even our sanctification is completely the work of God, but I’m not quite sure I have consistently experienced the truthfulness of that. While considering the myriad of Christian truths discussed by Owen in Spiritual-Mindedness, I began to understand a bit more of just how sinful I am. The truth is that for a long time I haven’t considered myself all that bad. After all, I could compare myself to someone else – an unbeliever, or a “weaker” Christian – and I’d feel better about my spiritual state. But once I began to examine my life with God’s awesome holiness, or with the standard recorded in His Word, I recognized my disgusting and wretched state before Him. The Lord requires perfection, and I daily fail at attaining that mark.

Considering how much light God has given to me, I have even less of an excuse than the average Joe who has not been raised in a Christian home, raised in the Church, and in a land where I have easy access to the Scriptures. I have far less of an excuse! I thought about Romans 7, where the Apostle says of himself, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” (Romans 7:24, NASB). I began to think this about myself.

If all that I’m saying is true of me, and may be true of you, how might we answer the Apostle Paul’s question? How can we be free of this body of death? If we claim to be Christians but continue on sinning, shouldn’t our primary concern be to increase God’s reputation by living a life according to His precepts? I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how I might stop from sinning, and I found that I am totally, completely, utterly, 100% unable to stop sinning by my own ability.

The only solution to our sins is God. This is true of all aspects of salvation: being foreknown by God before the foundation of the world, being predestined by Him, being called by Him, being justified by Him, being sanctified by Him, and finally, being glorified in the likeness of Christ’s glorification. Is that not the teaching of Romans 8:28-30?

Jesus says in John 15:5, “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing” (NASB). If Jesus meant what he said here, how can we hope to keep from sinning unless it is by his power?

I did something that I was reluctant to do: I made a list of sins that I do. Looking at that list is difficult because it is a reminder of my sinfulness, and frankly, it would be much easier to pretend that everything in my life is A-okay. But everything in my life is not okay. It dawned on me that while I have periodically prayed for God’s help to overcome these sins, I had not really believed that God would do anything. Deep down I was still dependent upon myself and my own power and ability. I was like the man in James 4, “You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures” (NASB).

God’s Holy Spirit will not answer prayers according to our will. The Holy Spirit answers prayers that are in accordance with God’s will. Personally, I can tell you that the only times I do anything good, or don’t do anything bad, is because of God’s grace alone. The road is long, the pathway narrow, but I know that the Lord desires for me to live a certain way and is continuing to work in my life. When I trust in His ability to rule in my heart it is amazing what He does.

One of the members at my church has prayed a prayer for years that I would like to pray for myself: that God would make me a trophy of His grace … for His own name’s sake.

Sola Gratia, and, Soli Deo Gloria,
Rusty

The Weary and Heavy-Laden

2009-07-08T05:14:00.002-07:00

Have you ever felt the weight of your sins? Do you know what it means to have your guilt overcome you to the point of desperation? How about a godly sorrow and a hatred for what you’ve done? I’m not just talking about the fear of getting caught and of what other men might say if they only knew the real you. I’m talking about gaining a meaningful understanding about how wretched you are before the sight of the one holy God.

I have experienced this before, and it is a frightening thing to feel the weight of my sins before the infinite God, Maker of heaven and earth. There is good news for those of us who have felt such a burden! In fact, Christ calls us to him: “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30, NASB).

What has amazed me about the unlimited wisdom of God displayed in the gospel of His Son, is who and how God has chosen to save. Earlier in Matthew, Jesus is giving instructions to his disciples as they go out to preach that the kingdom of God is at hand. One thing that I thought was odd is that Christ instructs the disciples not to go to the Gentile cities or to the Samaritans, but only to Israel (10:5-6). Obviously, the gospel is meant for all peoples today, but Christ’s purpose at that time was not meant to reach every individual. Applying that to today – where the gospel is meant for all people everywhere – we know that the gospel is heard by everyone the Lord so intends.

The Lord knew and knows all things, including the persecution his followers would face. He even forewarns them of the difficulties to come: “Behold, I sent you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles” (Matthew 10:16-18, NASB).

Amazingly, many who heard the preaching of Christ and even saw many miracles did not and would not repent and believe in Him. Our Lord took special notice of those who heard and saw the most and declared the coming judgment upon them for their lack of faith. In fact, Sodom would be better off during the Final Judgment than these present unrepentant cities!

Immediately following this pronouncement of judgment by Christ, he gives thanks to the Father for keeping hidden spiritual truth from the wise and intelligent but making it known to infants (Matthew 11:25). What a truly remarkable prayer! This is perfectly in line with the rest of the Scriptures – consider Paul’s statements to the Corinthians, as one example.

Does it not amaze you that the King of the universe has withheld spiritual understanding from those our world considers wise? God has not chosen to save those human beings we would expect an almighty God to save. But because of His own sovereign will (11:27), the infants of the world are born again to be freed from the bondage of sin and its consequences, and are now slaves of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Only those who are weary and heavy-laden with the weight of their sins are willing to come to Christ. The question might be asked, “Who is weary and heavy-laden with their sins?” And this is a fair question. Answer: the one having dealings with God’s Holy Spirit, who convicts sinners of their sins. It is not enough to say that you have felt conviction of your sins at one point in time. It is not enough to have moments where you regret particular sins. You must recognize your wretched and helpless state before the only true God and come to Him through faith alone, trusting fully in His ability to deliver you from a life and consequences of sin.

If you do not feel the weight of your sins, I implore you to consider your ways, your thoughts, your heart. You know how sinful you are, especially compared to the perfection of the triune God. Beg Him to cause you to hate your sin. Admit that you have no love for God and that you are utterly dependent on Him if you are to have salvation.

I would like to conclude with this: if you have not heard the good news about Jesus Christ, or even if you have but do not find yourself believing, I would love to talk with you sometime. The invitation is there =)

Thanks for reading,
Casey

Why do any choose to follow Christ?

2009-07-01T04:40:00.001-07:00

A great Christian friend of mine tagged me in a note asking for thoughts on how one is converted to Christianity. I thought the discussion totally worthy of some attention and posted the following thoughts:

Justin,

What a most wonderful subject, brother =). Before I offer my thoughts I wanted to say thanks for bringing this up because it has been the focus of my mind and my heart for a few weeks now. Even more so, however, Christian people need to be reminded of our conversion and ought to be concerned about such things as the (whuh oh, here’s a fancy phrase =)) Ordo Solutus … the Order of Salvation. My understanding of the Ordo Salutus has changed over the years and has, as a result, greatly impacted my life.

As a Christian, the way in which sinners are converted to Christianity continues to affect me.

I’m not sure I can put a number of “steps” together describing how I view the conversion process, but I think I can handle scribbling down some bullet points.

(1) First, I believe that because of the Fall of Adam every single human being will not and cannot make positive advancements towards God and the gospel. The Scriptures teach that men are willfully in rebellion against God, and are in fact called God-haters. We are all children of wrath by nature and love our sin, and we are dead to the things of God. Were the choice of salvation left to unregenerate sinners, we would always choose to remain in our sin – every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

(2) Why and how does anyone believe? Because of the work of the Holy Spirit. God’s Spirit raises sinners from spiritual death to spiritual life. This then produces faith. Faith does not produce regeneration to newness of life, but is rather a gift from God that comes naturally to the one who has been born again. Just as Lazarus naturally came forth after Jesus raised him from the dead, even we, after having been raised to life will naturally have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

(3) The Holy Spirit uses means to accomplish conversion. He does not just transfer information into someone’s brain and –POOF- they believe that information. No. God sends preachers to boldly and clearly proclaim His gospel in every land. This means that there are certain things one must comprehend before they can believe: God, sin, Hell, grace, the gospel, etc.

(4) God always convicts the sinner of his sin so that he recognizes his great need of a perfect savior. It is this point that has really struck home for me as of late … that a true conversion is one which involves a sorrow, worry and a hatred for their sins. The sinner’s heart ought to be greatly troubled by their wicked ways, so much so that they wonder how they might be redeemed from the wrath to come. The answer is found in Jesus Christ, and is plain to those the Holy Spirit causes to be born again.

(5) My final thought is this: an individual may wrestle with the gospel because of particular circumstances, arguments, religious beliefs, or other various perspectives. But the God of the Bible is a perfect Savior, and He saves to the uttermost without our cooperation. When He grants saving grace to someone and calls them out of the tomb he cannot help but come forth in believing expectation because it is in their new nature to do so. And no amount of false beliefs can stop God’s mighty hand. This means that God receives all the glory for it. Truly, salvation is wholly of the Lord our God.

Casey

A&D, Night at the Museum 2, and UP

2009-06-22T02:47:00.000-07:00

Please forgive the lateness of this entry, but I’ve been preoccupied with some other things on my plate. What better way to start off the summer than with a light hearted blog of movie reviews? Two out of these three films I was, quite frankly, expecting to very much dislike, but I ended up enjoying them very much.

Angels and Demons (A&D) was the sequel to The DaVinci Code (TDC), and I would be dishonest if I said TDC didn’t strongly influence my preemptive feelings towards A&D. TDC book was fast-paced, exciting … a real thriller. But – you knew there had to be a “but” =) – it was filled with so many historical errors and unfounded claims that it should be considered a-historical. If you’re wondering, the author did intend for the reader to understand all historical discussion to be perfectly factual. This is why TDC is a dangerous work. The movie of the TDC was incredibly boring. So-so acting. Lengthy stretches of dialogue. Boooring.

I was hoping for more from A&D, and my expectations were pretty low. Plus, I fully expected the movie to attack Christianity throughout. Instead, the movie was very much in favor of true-religion. It also was very anti-Catholic in a fair way, and who can argue with that? Oddly enough, I thought the movie brought out time and time again how the Roman Catholic Church was not infallible by pointing to their condemnations of Galileo and other scientific advancements. If the Roman Church was infallible how could they be so often wrong about numerous scientific areas, such as the world being round? Ewan McGregor does a superb job; an absolutely wonderful performance.

The original Night at the Museum was okay. Funny, but not knee-slapper funny. Night at the Museum 2 was a huge step up comedy-wise. It wasn’t that Ben Stiller was suddenly more humorous, but rather everyone else in the film was. Honestly, I was laughing so much my sides hurt. Without mentioning any spoilers: the scene where Stiller’s character and Pharaoh are arguing is one of the funniest moments I’ve seen in the cinema. It is also fairly romantic, and Amy Adams pretty much stole the show. Hands down, the movie proved to me that she is an extremely talented actress. I don’t know of anyone else who coulda pulled off that script as well. This is a clean, good and funny movie. Highly recommended.

Last but not least, well actually, it is least (but still good), is the movie UP. Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to view it in 3-D, which would have made the experience even better. But still a great show. I had heard the movie was sad, in fact, depressing! I was not looking forward to seeing UP. The story is very much about real life things, and I appreciate that. It is romantic, sentimental and very heartfelt. Yes, I did laugh. Let me just say that the dogs, in every scene, are too good.

Still so many movies to look forward to: Transformers, the Half-Blood Prince, and GI Joes. Am I missing anything?

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Page Five

2009-06-12T04:24:00.001-07:00

My pastor came over to talk with me a couple weeks back and plopped down a book in my lap titled Spiritual-Mindedness by John Owen. He told me he wanted to get me a book to thank me for helping teach our high school and junior high classes. Pastor Fry is such a great guy.

For whatever reason I haven’t gotten around to reading anything by the famous John Owen, although his The Death of Death in the Death of Christ has been on my reading list for years. He was one of the greatest Puritans and I was sure the book would be a terrific read and an encouragement.

Once I finished the latest WoW book I was reading I began Owen’s work. By the time I made it to page 5 I felt an intense amount of conviction and knew I would write a blog about this book. As of right now I’m on page 30, and I love it. Never before have so few words impacted me this greatly, or swayed me in so many areas.

Here’s one portion from page 5:

“Many greatly deceive themselves when hearing the word preached. They agree with the holy truths in their understanding and assent to them as good ‘ideas’. But these truths are not allowed to impress themselves on their consciences nor to judge their present state and condition before God. They think they believe, but in reality they do not. They hear, understand, assent to, and often approve of the things preached, but still they do not believe them so that the truth rules in their hearts. If they really believed the truth as they say they do then they would judge themselves in the light of it. They are like a man who looks at himself in a mirror, and then goes away and immediately forgets what he has just seen (James 1:23-24). They hear the word and agree with it, but their minds are so filled with other interests that they soon forget what they have heard” (Pgs. 5-6).

I don’t know about you, but when I read those words I honestly stopped to think. I really wanted to examine my own life to see whether I truly believed or not – something I’ve done periodically throughout my adult life. If the Devil and his co-fallen angels can mentally assent to God’s truth then surely other fallen creatures can as well. I did not want that to be true of me. Not for one moment.

Owen’s application from James of the man who looks at himself in a mirror but forgets what he looks like also aided me in understanding just what that passage meant. Sure, I’ve read it before, and probably even used it in one of my lessons. But I don’t think I fully grasped what James was getting at. How many times have I read the Bible, prayed, or heard a sermon and immediately afterwards put thoughts of God out of my mind? I’m taking James’ words as a warning to those of us who let this happen, because as Owen goes on to say, the Christian naturally thinks about spiritual things.

Owen continues in a later chapter:

“The well the Samaritan woman drew water from was a lifeless, earthly thing, of no use unless buckets and ropes were used to draw the water to the surface. But the ‘living water’ Christ gives bubbles up continually within us and is for our spiritual refreshment. This is the secret of the person who is a new creation in Christ and who has a new spiritual nature. The Spirit with his graces is the source of true spiritual life in believers. This spiritual spring bubbles up of itself without the need of any outward influences to draw it into holy, heavenly, spiritual thoughts. The spiritual man has within him a spiritual spring which ‘naturally’ bubbles up spiritual thoughts and desires” (Pgs. 11-12).

Shortly after this, he makes the point that men may think about spiritual things when they have outward influences, like sermons, to give them spiritual ideas. But the true Christian needs no external influences for his thoughts to turn to God and His truth. Spiritual-mindedness is natural for the one who has been born by the Spirit.

As I’ve asked myself, let me now ask you: do your thoughts naturally turn towards spiritual things? Or do you rely on others, church, sermons, or whatever else it might be to cause you to think about God?

Pastor Fry will often say to our congregation: “I assume that you prayed throughout the course of this week…” Why would my pastor say such a thing? Because he knows that the one truly believing in Jesus will pray. Prayer is not a duty to be quickly fulfilled, but rather a joy that is as necessary as the food we eat.

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church to examine themselves to see if they were truly in the faith. I believe Christians today should examine themselves as well, unless they find, as Paul said, they fail the test?

“But let us not think that we can truly examine ourselves and arrive at the right conclusion about ourselves without the help of God. We need to pray with the Psalmist, ‘Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my anxieties; and see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead in the way everlasting’ (Psa. 139:23-24)” (Pg. 20).

I’ll end with this: “So our thoughts are the best and surest way of showing us what we are in ourselves. ‘As a man thinks in his heart, so is he’ (Prov. 23:7)” (Pg. 7, Bold Mine).

Thanks for reading,
Casey

A Fantastic Tale, Full of Adventure

2009-06-03T02:43:00.000-07:00

This is one of the most sought-after events of the year, hosted by a highly regarded company in its industry. Her products have tested the limits of popularity and leave their customer base with an ever growing desire for more. To what am I referring? Blizzard’s annual celebration conference: BlizzCon 2009, August 21-22 in Anaheim, CA.

A number of us were lucky enough to make it to last year’s BlizzCon and we all decided to repeat our geeky experience. There was only one problem: 20,000 tickets, but tens of thousands (maybe more) who wanted them. Pulling some stereotypical “Casey-isms,” I did my research. Why? … I had to know what I was up against and how to best accomplish the rigorous task of purchasing tickets. Last year the tickets sold out in about 12 minutes! I was determined to again be one of those people.

Since Blizzard only sells BlizzCon tickets at their online store, you can imagine what might happen when thousands upon thousands upon thousands try to visit a website at once. Last year the website continuously crashed upwards of two days =). Twas quite the mess.

This year, they upgraded their system and set up a queue once you login to their website. It worked much better. I tested the queue days before the release of the first batch of tickets which would be on March 16th with my preferred browser, Google Chrome. Both Chrome and Firefox were giving me a hassle so I decided to use IE *sigh* - but it worked! I also set the homepage to the Blizzard Store, and had links on the toolbar directly to the BlizzCon tickets page, to the BlizzCon main page and even to the BlizzCon forums so that I might stay up to date on what was goin on – didn’t wanna miss any updates from a “Blue” =).

Initially, they didn’t announce at what time they would be selling the tickets on the 16th, so I was planning to stay up all night to refresh the page. Thankfully, late Friday night they announced they would be selling them at 9am PDT. This allowed me and my brother (who was also going to buy a set of tickets) to get some shuteye. Both Cory and myself were up by 8am and started checking the page. With twenty minutes to spare, I was continuously refreshing the page … still not fully trusting that Blizzard would begin selling at 9am on the dot. Turns out I was right, and they went up for sale at approximately 8:58am.

Immediately I joined the queue and selected to buy 4 tickets. Already I was in 3000th place! I quickly called Cory to see where he was at, and he wasn’t too far behind me. We both were able to secure our tickets, which was followed up by calling the rest of our party.

The tickets sold out after about 28 minutes, I believe. The second batch was sold on the 30th, and are now sold out. Of course, some are selling tickets on Ebay for a significant profit margin =)

This year: me, Emily, Cory, Melissa, Scott, Mindy, Mrs. Nelson and Jennifer.

I believe I speak for our entire party when I say: and verily, much w00tage did thus fill the land =)

Upholding Dalaran by the power of the Kirin Tor,
Rusty

Statement from the White House

2009-06-03T02:16:00.002-07:00

Hat tip to Dr. James White who posted this on his blog:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary ___________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release June 1, 2009

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009- - - - - - -BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROCLAMATION

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society....
Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security....NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

------------------------------------------------------

For our regular reading audience, commentary is not necessary. You know how unbiblical this is. This is discrimination that gives a super-rights status to everyone but straights and Christians. What good can the promotion of sinful lifestyles bring about? Nothing … nada. I don’t know about you, but I am extremely thankful our God is in control of all things, especially every step by our leaders.

Rusty

Half Right

2009-06-01T02:35:00.001-07:00

One of my two suggested activities for our trip to Washington was visiting Mark Driscoll’s church. From the beginning, I’ve read his books and listed to his sermons. I even follow the guy’s blog from time to time. I’ve had a renewed interest in him ever since his “Acts 29” network of churches has become rather popular in Phoenix.

We mapquested. We came. We saw.

I had expectations, and quite honestly, it was better than I thought it would be. Once inside, I couldn’t help but chuckle at how much it looked like BlizzCon. The room was dark with blue spotlights shining along the walls. There were at least eight projection screens: six leading up to the front and two at the front. My rough guess would be that the room can hold around 3000 people, and it ended up being packed that particular Sunday morning. We went to the second service and were a bit disappointed that Mark Driscoll was traveling. One of the other pastors did preach in his place, and it is to that sermon, as well as Mark Driscoll’s usual ministry that the title is attributed.

Everyone was asked to stand as they read from the Psalter – I was pleasantly surprised at this point. We sang a song or two, both of which were excellent. A little too showy, with guitar solo’s etc, but the song content was spot on.

Then we arrived at the sermon. It was … well, even now I’m uncertain how I feel about it. It was about half right. This does also mean that he was half wrong in his methodology and in the content of what was said. Here’s another rough estimate: 7 minutes is the total time spent reading and interacting with the Scriptures, including an explanation of its historical background. What I mean by this is that for the rest of the 53 minutes (it was quite a long sermon) he spent on rabbit trails and eisegetically applying untruths to the text. He focused quite a bit of time explaining his understanding of how to balance theology and doctrine with experience. In the end, he sided with strong leanings towards emotionalism and experience – and apparently, “charismatic” is the healthy balance between crazy Pentecostals and Cessationists.

Our post-service experience involved going into the bathroom to check out the tile … remember that in Radical Reformission Driscoll talks about how even the tile in the bathroom should be culturally relevant to better reach the world. It was a pasty brown color and didn’t seem any more appealing than any other bathroom =).

Definite attempts were being made to appear “cool” to the world, and it was fascinating to see Mark Driscoll’s philosophy being played out. Emily’s conclusion served me better than all my dramatic formulations when she said, “That felt like an oversized high school youth group.” I laughed … a lot … when she said that. But you know what? She’s right. For those of us who have grown up in mega churches where the services are geared at attracting young people, we know exactly what she means.

This brings me back to the title of this entry: Half Right. The sermon especially, but the whole experience was only 50% good.

Let me ask a provocative question: if a pastor, like Mark Driscoll, delivers sermons that are only about half beneficial – with the other half giving negative effects – would you say such a man is qualified for the ministry?

Thanks for reading,
Casey

Seattle, in All Her Glory

2009-05-29T03:44:00.000-07:00

It’s hard to believe that I was gone for five days on vacation. Rarely do I take vacations, and ever rarer for five glorious days =).

Emily was planning a trip to Washington a number of months ago and invited me to come along with her. Truly, a terrific idear. Kudos to you, Emmie. This was especially important because Emily grew up in Washington State and would be able to show me around, meet her friends and more of her family.

Our trip included, but not limited to, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Bremerton and the Hood Canal (that may or may not be considered a city *ignorant smirk*). One of Emily’s close friends, Crisslee, was our gracious host located in Tacoma. It is a charming city with an innumerable number of mom-and-pop shops. We ate there on more than one occasion; the customer service was terrific.

Seattle was almost a two day experience, which was well-deserved. I still remember the drive into the city from Tacoma: lots of traffic on the one freeway in, with lots of these things they call “skyscrapers.” One of my goals was to take a picture of every Starbucks in sight, which means I’ve prolly acquired dozens and dozens of these photos – more often than not with more than one Starbucks in view along with another coffee shop! It was hilarious. Oh, and we had coffee. Every day. Many a time. I don’t think I’ve consumed that much coffee over such a brief span of time.

My next impression of Seattle was of how much was going on throughout the city. Of course there are tourists, but also those hard at work, protestors, lots of people walking, and people engaged in conversation. I probably spoke with five or six different protestors along one of the busier streets: people protesting the War in Iraq, advocates for Palestinian rights, same-sex marriage, cult religions, and Christian street evangelists.

In Seattle, but moreso in Olympia, I could immediately sense (not supernaturally) spiritual and moral decadence. The homosexual community is openly unashamed of their lifestyle, to the point where it was flaunted all over town, and in creative ways. Honestly, I didn’t know so many guys dressed like that. Because of my sometimes diverse audience, I suppose I should add that I do not hate homosexuals at all. But I do believe what the Bible says about it: it is a sinful and unacceptable lifestyle. God is our Creator – we, His creatures – and He has the right to define our behavior, including our sexuality. Obviously, I felt terribly sad for the rampant promotion of sin throughout this beautiful state, especially in these two cities. I’m certain that if I lived there, I would spend much of my time seeking productive conversations with the many opponents to the gospel.

So overwhelming was the rampant sinful behavior in Washington that I am now praying this culture doesn’t spread throughout the rest of our nation. It would be our undoing. May God be merciful to our nation and grant a reformation and revival.

How could I go to Seattle and not visit Pike’s Place Market??? I mean, come on! I work for the best coffee shop on earth (and now having added many more coffee shops to the list, I can say that with greater confidence =)). We waited in line for twenty minutes to get inside the first Starbucks. Any guesses what I ordered? The famous trio of black singers was outside … singing. They were great! We walked through the entire fish market where I bought these deep-fried donuts recommended by my manager (another native to Seattle), and saw the famous fish-throwing market.

Probably the most important part of the trip was getting to meet Emily’s brother and sister in law, along with her grandparents. Pretty sure I hit it off with all of ‘em, even though I’m Reformed. *whew* … *tries to look more confident* … I mean! Was there any doubt?!?! =)

Overall, it was a swell time, and I’m sad to be back to reality =). Pics to come on fb, soon.

Thanks for reading,
Bainton

Because I Say So

2009-05-20T02:53:00.001-07:00

When all the voluminous arguments are brushed aside, this, in a nutshell, is the underlying presupposition held by the Roman Catholic Church to defend her ultimate authority. No, I’m not exaggerating one bit. This really is the “end all, be all” of arguments for the Roman Catholic.

I’ve asked more than one Roman Catholic the following question: “Why should I accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate authority on earth?” Answers may vary depending on the depth of study of the individual, but here are a few of the more common answers: (1) church history validates Rome’s claims, (2) an unbroken Apostolic succession of Pope’s beginning with Peter, and (3) because of the Bible. One, two and three … usually in that order, or at least with the authority of the Bible given last.

The responses become even more muddled when I add on the following qualifier to the end of my question: “Why should I accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate authority on earth, as opposed to the Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or the Prophet and Apostles of the Latter-day Saint Church?”

Here is an honest and an overwhelmingly fair question: are we to just accept Rome’s claims about herself, no questions asked?

Consider with me for a moment the 3 arguments posed by Roman Catholics in defense of “Mother Church,” and you will begin to see how easily their line of thinking begins to unravel.

First – church history validates Rome’s claims? It is all-too-often claimed by Roman Catholics, especially Protestants who wind up converting to Romanism, that once they began studying church history they are amazed at how “Catholic” the church fathers sound. Usually what this means is that many of the early church fathers use terms Roman Catholics are familiar with and, using anachronism, interpret the meanings of these words as Rome presently defines them. For example, the term “Catholic” didn’t (and doesn’t) mean “the Roman Catholic Church.” “Catholic” simply means “universal,” which does not pose any problem for the Protestant who believes local churches make up Christ’s worldwide collection of saints. But the Roman Catholic who has his anachronism-goggles on will only see what he wishes to see, and therefore interprets “Catholic” as though the early church was referring to a single church, and not the Biblical understanding of the universal body of believers scattered around the world amidst local churches.

Furthermore, the real reason this argument astounds me is because they act as though church history presents a single church … in Rome … with the majority of professing Christians agreeing with present-day Roman Catholic beliefs. Anyone with a cursory understanding of church history laughs at such a claim. The only thing most professing Christians in history agreed on was monotheism, and even then Arianism reigned supreme for a time.

This brings out another point: if Rome claims church history as her ally, wouldn’t the history books have to present a unified, or at least a majority opinion for most of history, agreeing with their current doctrines? What I have found when I’ve pressed this issue is that Rome can’t (or won’t) claim all of church history, but only the parts they agree with. A clear example of this is with the famous Augustine, loved by Protestant and Catholic alike. Roman Catholics love him for his view of church authority in dealing with the Donatists, while Protestants love his view of Predestination and sovereign grace. Obviously Rome disagrees with Augustine’s pre-Calvinistic view of Predestination, so they can’t honestly say they agree with all of Augustine. In light of this, how can they honestly claim church history defends her? They want to pick and choose, all the while pretending that the church fathers “unanimously” agree with her.

Second – beginning with Peter as the first Pope, there was an unbroken succession of an Apostolic Papal authority? There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Peter ever went to Rome. We have to trust Rome and even her “unwritten oral traditions.” I’m not kidding. Unwritten. Oral. Traditions. If they’re unwritten, umm, how can one know what those traditions were? You just have to trust “Mother Church” on that one. That’s it. There is one interesting fact that I’ve not yet heard a meaningful response to: there was a plurality of bishops at the church in Rome in the first and second centuries. This is important because according to the Roman Catholic Church Peter was the (singular) Bishop/Pope in Rome, and there was only ever a single Bishop/Pope in Rome since that time.

The best argument for the cessation of the gift of Apostleship is that the purpose for this role in the Church was to lay the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). Welp, that foundation has been laid my friends, and Christ has been glorified in His Church for 2000 years (Ephesians 3:21) with walls, a ceiling, windows, door, antechamber … you get the idea. To claim that Apostles were continuously being given implies that the foundation needs to continuously be laid, which is not how any building is made. The foundation is laid and then one starts building.

Third – the Bible establishes Peter as the “rock” which means he will begin the unbroken Apostolic succession at a church 1500 (?) miles away from Jerusalem as the ultimate authority in all things on earth and as the personal representative for Christ until the end of all things. This is always a tricky argument for a Roman Catholic to make because it is an appeal from a source that they believe is unclear and receives its authority from the Church.

Since I’ve dealt with the “Peter = the rock” argument in a previous post, I won’t spend time on that here. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say that in Matthew 16 Jesus does say (though he doesn’t), “I say that you are Peter, and you are the Rock upon which I will build my Church…” Then what? How does Rome make “Rock” equal “the unbroken Apostolic succession at a church 1500 (?) miles away from Jerusalem as the ultimate authority in all things on earth and as the personal representative for Christ until the end of all things”? Leaps and bounds must be made between unconnected dots to make sense of how Rome chooses to interpret this passage.

After engaging each of these arguments, I have heard 2 epistemological questions that are an indirect appeal to the ultimacy of Rome: (1) “So you don’t believe in the authority of Christ’s Church?” and (2) “Oh Come on. Rome is clearly Christ’s Church. Come on.”

To epistemological question #1, I would simply say that yes, each of Christ’s local churches have a real authority. But the Church (comprised of local churches around the world) receive their authority from the God-breathed Scriptures. They themselves are not the ultimate authority. Rather, like good pillars, they hold up the truth which is found in the Bible.

To question #2, I would ask, so you expect me to trust in Rome just because you or she says so? And again, what makes Rome different than the authority in Salt Lake City or in Chicago?

No matter which way one begins a conversation with a seriously minded conservative Roman Catholic, the discussion will always find its way back to epistemology, ultimate authority issues and one’s presuppositions. This is what truly divides Roman Catholicism from Protestantism: Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia – that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, vs. the Roman Church is the sole infallible rule of faith.

Thanks for reading,
Casey

A Change in the Timeline

2009-05-13T02:31:00.000-07:00

For a few moments I just sat there in the theater, mulling over JJ Abrams’ latest masterpiece. Did I like the fact that the story was so very different than the traditional version? I wasn’t prepared for a completely different timeline, but once my brother, Cory, emphasized the new timeline – therefore allowing for a Star Trek reloaded – I was put at ease. I’ve seen it twice, actually, mostly because of different company accompanying me. Each cinematic experience brought me something unique and exciting. Until this film, I believe that Star Wars: Episode III has had the best special effects, but this … this movie blows Star Wars’ FX out of the water. Wasn’t Lucasarts behind the FX of Star Trek? I walked into my high school Sunday school class laughing, knowing that the same students who mocked me for wanting to see Star Trek would most likely end up seeing it now that everyone is giving it a great report.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine wasn’t as well done a film, but I personally enjoyed this more than Star Trek. People’ve informed me that some details in the story were different, but I didn’t catch any myself. It seemed to get a slow start, but once the ball got rolling it wouldn’t stop. I loved every minute of it, especially Wolverine’s development in deciding to be one of the good guys. That will always be my favorite trait that he possesses: incredible ability yet an unwavering sense of doing the right thing. Wolverine cares about justice. He may be angry, but he tries to do what he thinks is right. I went home from the midnight showing and read the first X-Men comic that the cartoon series was based on – Season 1 and 2 are on DVD btw. I just found that out this week and purchased Season 1! My excitement meter went through the roof. All I know is that my girlfriend now compares me to Hugh Jackman’s hotness, which is totally unfair! =)

Following four months of reading too much non-fiction, like Bart Ehrman or Romanist apologists, I have finally made some time to read some fiction novels. Normally I try to switch between fiction and non-fiction, but I am going to attempt to read the entire Warcraft series. Previously, I would chuckle at the thought of reading such things, but I finally caved at the 2008 BlizzCon where I purchased the War of the Ancients trilogy. It was phenomenal, and captivated my imagination in a way greater than Lord of the Rings ever did. There are eight or nine Warcraft books, one which recently came out in print. Establishing the chronological order has been somewhat difficult, but I believe I’ve got the general order down. If you enjoy fantasy fiction novels at all, you will certainly enjoy the World of Warcraft stuff.

Thanks for reading,
Bainton

Self-Idolization

2009-05-06T03:07:00.000-07:00

At one time I was an education major at Arizona State University. Ah yes, those were the days, the glory days where my higher education time was spent covering the importance of self-esteem in the lives of our future students. Far too much time [Master Kenobi], if you ask me. To add pain to my misery, just when I imagined we had exhausted all possible tangential approaches to the subject, my professors would find another creative means by which to tackle the issue. Quite frankly, it was draining, and you can bet this was one of the reasons why I later changed to a different major.

Was it really such a bad thing for us to spend time preparing future educators to instruct America’s children to have greater self-esteem? I believe it was the most significant waste of my education thus far, and in fact, was harmful – or will be harmful – to America’s children.

Why do I say this? Because I’m not a believer in self-esteem. If you check up on a current definition of the term you will likely find at least one that includes something involving a “realistic” view of oneself. Yet, this is not how the term is practically used an applied. In each of my college textbooks, and in my years on this planet, it seems to me that the common understanding of this term means that folks have a greater appreciation of themselves, whether this is realistic or not.

How this practically works out in the education system looks something like this: little Johnny is upset. Why is Johnny upset? Because he is failing in P.E. due to misbehavior … that’s right, Physical Education. What would our educators recommend to Johnny and Johnny’s parents? Why, Johnny simply needs an improved view of himself, and he will certainly start to behave in P.E.! If he learns to value himself even more he will start to do better in class!

While this story is lacking in development, diagnosis and application, this is a fair representation of the situation or one analogous to it. Is Johnny’s problem that he is lacking self-esteem? Is the solution that he needs an even higher view of himself? I would suggest that were Johnny to have an even higher view of himself he might then defend his misbehavior in class. Why shouldn’t he if his view of the self only improves?

The concept of self-esteem has always bothered me, though I couldn’t quite put my finger on it until I began to understand the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism), especially that first point which says that the whole of human beings are totally depraved. As mentioned earlier, some definitions explain self-esteem as having a realistic view of oneself, but I believe that the understanding and application winds up being a very unrealistic view of oneself and of human beings in general. Promoters of self-esteem tend to believe that human beings are basically good and have capabilities to make true positive advancements. Another presupposition held by self-esteem advocates is functional atheism. Why? Because you better leave God out of the equation with regards to your mental health.

Does this not resound well with the wisdom of the world? It sounds like wisdom to say that the answer to all of our problems begin and end with man … precisely what sinners want to hear. No wonder this sort of terminology has exploded with popularity in recent decades! It is as if we’ve discovered the answer to all of our ails! … US!

Such audacity belongs to humankind to even begin to believe such notions. Who do we think we are to be able to diagnose our problems without the Creator? Yet, here we are, clay in the hands of the Potter, pretending there is no Potter, and somehow we’ve reached the conclusion that we have all the answers.

Have I still not convinced you that self-esteem is the completely wrong approach towards identifying and solving mankind’s mental health issues? Think back to any time you’ve been upset about something. Anything at all.

Now think on why you were upset or unhappy? Isn’t the root cause of your upset-ed-ness or unhappiness because you believe you deserve better circumstances? Were we to apply self-esteem to your situation, you would think even more highly of yourself, and would be prone to increase in your anger. On the contrary, were you to consider a Biblical perspective, you would thank God you didn’t receive what you deserve – death and Hell that very moment – and you would increase in humility and thankfulness towards God.

Every moment of life is a moment undeserved. Every happy experience is one undeserved. Each joyous pleasure is one undeserved. It is only from a Christian worldview that properly solves our mental health issues, and not the worldly wisdom that suggests that we have higher mountains to climb in our pride and arrogance.

Thanks for reading,
Case

Loveless Intellectualism... or is it?

2009-05-04T20:19:00.003-07:00

Greetings to all!

I write to you this evening from the zenith of the internet, with the wisdom found at the base of a coffee cup. For when the mind is energized, the body too will become so, and indeed the hands are soon to follow. It is with hope that I approach my first of many (Lord willing) blog posts. Hope that the mental energy (read: caffeine) captured in the dark, swirling bitter of coffee will find its way from mind, to body, to hands, and finally through keyboard and out to you.

Although I should probably do the obligatory autobiographical first post, I, in this case, will take the road less traveled. Let us pray it makes all the difference. (Thanks, Rob Frost). I will instead dive right into a stick that has been firmly planted in my crawl for several years now.

There is a perception in popular Christian culture that doctrine and theology is for the intellectual Christian. That the “deep bible stuff” is best left to the theologians and biblical scholars, but not for the “common” believer. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe these thoughts stem from two misunderstandings. The first and most basic is a misunderstanding of the word doctrine. The second is a lack of understanding of the practical application of theological principals, and what the bible actually says about doctrine itself. It is important to overcome these issues, because when one gains a more through understanding of scripture their walk with God (and life in general) is only ever enhanced.

“Just give me Jesus. You can take your loveless intellectualism elsewhere!”

If you disagree with my next statement your gut reaction might be to stop reading or head right for the comment section and blast me into oblivion, but please bear with me. Jesus loves doctrine, and if you love Jesus you too will love doctrine. Jesus was full of doctrine, so much so that it poured out of Him. During His earthly ministry Jesus was constantly giving us doctrine.

“Alright I get it! So why do you say that Jesus loved doctrine?”

At this point I’ll turn to Merriam-Webster for some insight.

Doctrine

-noun
1. Teaching; instruction.
2. That which is taught; what is held, put forth as true, and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect; a principle or position, or the body of principles, in any branch of knowledge; any tenet or dogma; a principle of faith; as, the doctrine of atoms; the doctrine of chances.

Doctrine is teaching! Jesus taught us things, He gave us doctrine… constantly. What I’m saying is, any time Jesus opened His mouth to teach us something He was providing us with doctrine. The Bible itself is a book of teaching, a book of doctrine. When you say, “Jesus loves me” you are expressing doctrine, the doctrine (teaching) of God’s love for His elect.

Jesus said of the Pharisees, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

–Mark 7:6-8 ~ NASB

In other words, Jesus is saying the Pharisees worship God in vain because they are teaching the precepts of men as if they were the commandments of God. Jesus is equating the commandments of God to doctrine, and the precepts of men to hypocrisy.

“Ok so doctrine is teaching, I’ll give you that one. But what I’m talking about is all that other stuff you guys get all worked up about. Like dispensationalist or covenant theology, infusion or imputation, you know that kind of stuff. Who cares!? Does it change my relationship with God at all?”

You already know what I’m going to say, so this time I’ll spare you the dramatic build-up. The answer is yes, those things (and many others) vastly change our relationship with God. In fact believing one way or the other on some of these issues is the difference between being a heretic and a true child of God.

“If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

–1 John 1:8 ~ NASB

If you don’t believe in the doctrine of Original Sin (Adam sinned, and sin is passed to all men from Adam, therefore all sin) the truth is not in you. If you read the context of the verse it’s very clear here that “truth is not in us” means you are not covered by the blood of the Lamb of God, you are not saved. But, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” –1 John 1:9 ~ NASB

To confess your sin you first have to believe you are a sinner. What you believe, and why you believe it, is of massive importance.

“But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,”

–2 Timothy 2:16-17 ~ NASB

What gangrene is leading to further ungodliness?

“men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place…”

–2 Timothy 2:18a ~ NASB

They were changing the doctrine of the resurrection so that they were able to say it had already taken place. As I’ve already pointed out, this is called gangrenes and ungodly! Is it not the believer’s goal to be more Godly?

“… holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.”

–Titus 1:9 ~ NASB

This is instruction to the elders of the church. Sound doctrine is to exhort believers, and refute those who contradict the doctrine.

“Ah ha! Back to my original point. This doctrine stuff is for the elders of the church!”

Keep reading a little further down:

“But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.”

–Titus 2:1 ~ NASB

If you read the rest of the qualifications for elders in Titus chapter 1 you might notice something interesting. These are qualities we expect to see in all Christians, not just the “super” Christians.

God’s doctrine is important for all Christians to understand. All 10 commandments are doctrine. Salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus alone is doctrine. I guess my point is “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” –2 Timothy 3:16-17 ~ NASB

With empty mug in hand,
Scott

Homosexual Super-Rights and the Thought-Police

2009-05-04T02:23:00.001-07:00

Dun worry, the title is more succinct than when I began: “Homosexual Super-Rights, the Thought-Police, and the All-Encompassing yet Overly-Vague ‘Hate Speech’ Idear.”

See what I mean? *Innocent grin*

I was first informed of the hate speech bill by a customer Friday morning, and I, like the Aldaran system, was completely blown away. The very moment I had access to a computer I did a quick search and sure enough, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would make hate speech illegal. What is hate speech exactly? That’s the thing, the bill isn’t overly clear in defining its terminology but does seem to assume it has an inherent meaning. What I can say is that hate speech laws that have passed in Europe or Canada are being applied primarily to stop freedom of speech against any verbal opposition towards homosexual marriage or homosexuality in general.

What sort of ramifications have there been in places like England or Canada? Up to this point, pastors have been fined and spent time in jail for preaching against homosexuality – get this – in their own churches, for quoting the Bible. And there it is. These are outrageous attacks against the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. None of these pastors supports the killing of gays and lesbians. None of these men support violence against the homosexual community. But their words were considered “hate speech” and therefore illegal.

I honestly never thought I would see the day when this kind of legislation would draw such support here in our nation. How wrong I was. Maybe a bit naive. There are people who want nothing more than to silence those who condemn homosexuality as wrong or … sinful.

Never in my life have I been so concerned about a particular new legislation as this bill. It still has to receive the Senate’s approval, and finally, President Obama’s – it shall likely receive both.

While spending time with close Christian friends and family over the weekend, many excellent conversations were had about this bill, which allowed me to further develop my thoughts about this subject. I was anxious for Sunday when I could talk with a friend of mine who has helped shape my political viewpoints: Rich Pierce. The first chance I had I asked Rich his opinion on the whole issue. His response changed my entire thinking on the bill and I am excited to tell you what he told me. In a nut shell, Rich explained that he hopes the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by the President. It isn’t that he wants Christians to lose the freedom of speech or religious practice, but in so doing, the Democratic Party would be shown to discriminate against opposing viewpoints, and that they would in effect be denying their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Rich added that the government would be sued, likely by Jay Seculo, and kept in the courts for 10 years before it made it to the Supreme Court, only to be shot down as unconstitutional by the high court. It has the potential to be a great victory for personal liberties, the Constitution, and for the freedom of expression – especially of religion.

From that vantage point, I cannot help but agree with Rich.

There are those conversations that change your mind or your thinking on an important issue in a few moments. This was one of those conversations for me. Thanks Rich.

What is startling to me is that the Democratic Party is filled with men and women who desire to discriminate justice. Same-sex marriage advocates argue that conservatives want to discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry. I defend the rights of homosexuals, and argue that they have the same rights as heterosexuals: to marry a member of the opposite sex. What homosexuals want is to redefine marriage to mean something it has never meant in our society, or in Western Society. What homosexuals want are super-rights. They want to define words however they want, and society does not function in this way. They make an absurd argument.

“See! See! This is the kind of hate speech I’m talking about!” cries the homosexual community. Why is the expression of an opposing viewpoint assumed to be hateful? I say all of this without hating homosexuals; rather, I love homosexuals. I try to be friendly towards homosexuals, just as I try to be friendly towards heterosexuals. From my perspective, both groups are sinful, but only one of these lifestyles is declared unacceptable by God. It seems to be asking too much of the political Left to recognize that disagreement of opinion doesn’t equate hatefulness.

But even if I was being hateful … even if I did hate gays … should the government try to play the thought-police by monitoring my opinions? Does the government have a right to tell me what I can and cannot say? Think about the slippery slope this is. What if the government outlawed pro-homosexual speech? Would the Left be okay with that? You can be your bottom dollar liberals would not endorse such a thing. On the other side of the political isle, no mainstream conservative is arguing for the silencing of pro-homosexual speech. And it is in this that we see the double standard.

Is it too much to ask for consistency?

Psalm 12:1 reads, “Help, LORD, for the godly man ceases to be, For the faithful disappear from among the sons of men.” (NASB).

May we, like the Psalmist, seek the Lord’s help in this fascinating time where the ungodly reign supreme. They strut about just like those later described in this psalm. What can the righteous do? We can watch and pray, boldly proclaiming the gospel of peace to our friends, family and coworkers. God’s plan is unfolding and we can rest assured that He will continuously be glorified in His Church throughout all generations (Ephesians 3:21). Our Lord has also promised that everything that happens, the good and bad, are meant for the good of His people. Therefore, how can we not express our thanksgiving to God, knowing that even wicked legislation is ultimately due to God’s ordained will?

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Some Light Reading

2009-04-29T11:33:00.000-07:00

I’m a day (or 2) late (and a dollar short?) in mentioning that my Boston Red Sox won 11 straight games, including a 3 game sweep against the Yankees! Yea buddy! Take that Yanks! It hasn’t been long that I’ve been watching baseball, or that I’ve been a Red Sox fan – 3 years? – it is definitely the greatest game of all time. How could anyone dispute this fact? I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if man’s creativity found a reason to brush baseball aside … although it is probably the same kind of reasoning that leads men to believe Macintosh is superior, or that Pepsi is better than Coke. Need I say more?

Emily and I went to the DBacks game on Saturday, which was the second game in the series against the Giants. They lost on Friday, and ended up losing that night. But we still had a great time at the game, and we were ahead for a couple innings after Upton hit a sweet homer.

Funny story time. So this lady a few rows ahead of us was holding up a sign that read, “Eric Byrnes, I heart you!” (An actual heart was there). Suddenly, some guy in the row behind us yells, “I came to watch the game not a sign!” And the sign whipped out of sight. A few innings later, while Byrnes was at bat, that same guy started obnoxiously yelling: “Oh Eric! My heart BUUURNS for you! I love you Eric! … Where oh where is the Eric-sign?!?!” He had everyone around us laughing. Needless to say, that woman was a bit embarrassed =).

And now for something completely different.

I was teaching my high school Sunday skewl class a few Sundays ago and was mentioning some bands that were cool in my day: Third Eye Blind, Hootie and the Blowfish, Smashing Pumpkins, and some others. They hadn’t heard of any of ‘em! Astonished, I was. Thankfully, they recognized some of Third Eye Blind’s songs once I started singing some well-known lines. But still … sad. I think what I need to do is bring my laptop one morning and play selective tunes while we’re all settling in, that way they can at least have a basic knowledge of the greatest era of music in recent history.

Anyone excited about Wolverine and Star Trek?! I’m seriously considering going to the midnight showings for both – even though I open the following mornings =). Anyone wanna go? Ferrealz.

Dba dba dba dba, that’s all folks!

Let’s Go Bos-ton!
Casey of Basey

God created the earth in SIX literal days?

2009-04-22T21:40:00.003-07:00

Up until 200 years ago there was almost no question in the church that God created the earth in six literal days. However, as knowledge through science grew so did man’s theories!
Augustine, a 5th Century philosopher and theologian had his own Old-Earth theory. He said that the days in Genesis could not be literal days, if only because Genesis itself tells us that the sun was not made until the fourth day. So if the sun was not made until the fourth day that is a good reason to theorize in a gap theory?

Here is a quote from a renowned young Earth creationist, Terry Mortenson. “The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24 hour days, a few thousand years ago. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis is yom. In the vast majority of its uses in the Old Testament it means a literal day; and where it doesn’t the context is clear” (day is used 2301 times in the O.T -Gen 1:5) why only question genesis? I think it is clear that the earth, by the authority of His word without question, was created in six literal days.

Theories have led men to believe, that only scientists could answer the questions of the creation of the world. The belief of the Gap theory has started to sneak into the church with great deception (Rom 16:17-18), theories that the earth and universe are millions of years old.
Some even believe that dinosaurs walked the earth long BEFORE man & God killed them off to make room for man. Let’s look at what God’s Word says!

Did dinosaurs live and die before Adam & Eve? Genesis 3:21 makes it clear that the first death after the creation of life (animal & man) was made by God. After sin entered the world, God killed the first living creature to make clothes for the now sinful Adam & Eve. (Rom 5:12)
These are just some reasons why we believe that the Bible is giving us the TRUE history of the World.
God’s Word is the final authority!

In Christ,
Eli

Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

2009-04-20T09:01:00.001-07:00

A couple factors led me to read Karl Marx’s and Frederick Engels’ The Communist Manifesto. For some reason, ever since Obama was selected as the Democratic candidate for President I have heard more talk about Marxism, Communism and Socialism than at any other point in my life. One of my friend’s at church was telling me about a Marxist friend of his who professes to be a Christian. We talked about how Marxism and Christianity have conflicting perspectives, and the likelihood of a true Christian having a Marxist political philosophy. The cherry on top for me was the day I decided to openly make negative comments about Marxism to gain a better understanding of how “normal” non-Christian folks think about it. By far, the most common reaction from the people I spoke with was a visible display of discomfort at their uncertainty about Marxism and/or Karl Marx.

And here we are. I ordered the book and was pleasantly surprised when I saw it was only 57 pages in length, which meant I could probably read it in one sitting. This is precisely what I did and I have to say … I have never received more strange looks from people for reading a book. Slowly, I attempted to hide the title on the cover because it was pretty embarrassing to read.

My first impression of The Communist Manifesto was that he was using a peculiar vocabulary, especially two terms that continuously made their way onto the page: “Borgeois” and “Proletarians.” The Borgeois consist of any group of people who own private property, the middle class, and all upper classes including royalty and most national rulers. Proletarians refer to the lowest of all the classes and do not own any private property.

If you want a summary of this entire work, here is my official understanding of his conclusions: It isn’t fair that some own private property while others don’t, therefore we should do away with all private property. While we’re at it, let’s do away with religion, morality, and the family unit.

No, I’m not kidding. I don’t believe Marx said a single thing I agree with, and that’s saying something. His worldview and presuppositions are completely wrong, his political philosophy wouldn’t work, he is completely opposed to moral standards and religion in general, and finally, he doesn’t recognize the terrible terrible inconsistencies within his own philosophy.

More than once, Marx and Engels acknowledge the criticism of their viewpoints. Here is one example,

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend” (Marx, K. Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto. Pg. 31. Brandywine Studio Press. 1888).

Yes, I am horrified at such an intention. I am unfamiliar with the correctness of the statement that 90% of the population at that time didn’t own property and were in the lowest of the classes. In any case, and he makes these kinds of statements throughout the entire work, it seems like I can pinpoint a handful of his presuppositions:

(1) It isn’t fair that some people have more than others.
(2) If someone has more than you, you have a right to take it from them to make yourself feel better.
(3) Their (Proletarians) rights are more important than the rights of the Borgeois.

Marx notes another objection, “…that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us” (Marx, K. Engels, F. Pg. 32).

What is his response? “According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work” (Mark, K. Engels, F. Pg. 32).

[Enter sarcasm] Oh! What a brilliant response! I had no idea the rich were lazy and undeserving of their extravagant wealth. [Exit sarcasm] Seriously though, what a copout of an answer. Does he expect us to believe that the wealthy in society are lazy? Did they attain their great wealth through great amounts of effort or from idleness? His response is pathetic. Terribad.

Oh, and if you attempt to interact with his arguments from a religious or philosophical perspective, Marx has this to say: “The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination” (Mark, K. Engels, F. Pg. 36). Okay then. Marx just demonstrated how serious he is of persuading his opponents.

Pages 38 and 39 have a list of 10 steps to have a successful Communist revolution. I wish I was joking, but at least we know what to look for.

The final words of The Communist Manifesto are about as bad as it gets. Nothing I can say could do it justice so I’ll just quote the following:

“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!” (Mark, K. Engels, F. Pgs. 56-57).

Anyone else feeling sickly? Ugh. Let me remind the reader that Adolf Hitler was greatly influenced by Karl Marx, which seems to be a wonderful expression of the “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

One of my friends recently asked me, “But, isn’t Communism a good idea on paper but just lacks some direction to function properly?”

I asked, “Which Communist nation recently failed?”

He answered, “Oh yea … The Soviet Union.”

“Yea,” I said, “the reason for this is because Communism is bad on paper and bad in real life. It makes-believe that human beings are something they are not and expects society to function on make-believe ideas. It doesn’t work.”

Rustoleum

Witnessing to Those Who Believe They're Persecuted

2009-04-15T11:04:00.001-07:00

“Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12, NASB). There is almost nothing about this verse that is true of the Latter-day Saints, though I am certain they would disagree with me =). Alpha and Omega Ministries spent our Friday and Saturday evening handing out tracts at the Mormon temple in Mesa, AZ. It was painfully obvious that this people group believes that anyone opposed to their faith is there to persecute them. True, the King-James-Only groups were there to mock them and stir up all sorts of emotions, but many non-Latter-day Saints were there just to talk.

AOMin has attended the Mesa Easter pageant and both General Conferences put on by the LDS Church since 1983 – I was approximately one year old (sorry James, I had to mention it =)). This was my eighth year handing out tracts at the Easter Pageant, and fourth year since I’ve officially been a part of AOMin. My style and motivation for witnessing has certainly changed over the years, but my message has remained the same: I desire Latter-day Saints to believe in the one true and living triune God of the Bible, and not in the god and gods of Mormonism.

I have spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of Latter-day Saints, and you would think that after all of those conversations I would grow accustomed to watching Mormons pass me by with an evil glare. But I never have grown accustomed to it. Entire families would cross to the other side of the street to avoid being asked to read one of our tracts. You’d think we had the Black Plague or something =). Rich Pierce, President of AOMin, put it best when he described Mormons as having a “persecuted chip on their shoulder.”

In the face of such massive rejection, why do we spend the time handing out tracts to this people group? First and foremost, we desire to bring honor and glory to God by the faithful proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Secondly, we pray for the salvation of Latter-day Saints … that it might please God to grant them saving faith and repentance unto life. The Mormons are one of the most unreached people groups in the United States, and … my God can save anybody. No cultic system that spends time training their members not to read or consider opposing ideas can stand in the way of the Holy Spirit of God who saves to the uttermost those whom He has chosen to save.

Both nights felt like productive nights. Between Friday and Saturday I had five or six good conversations with folks. One conversation was with a convert from Roman Catholicism. Most of our time was spent discussing the Trinity, and how the Latter-day Saint belief that the three divine Persons are three beings contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. We reached a point in our discussion where this gentleman understood the problem his beliefs were in the face of Scripture and attempted to divert the point by suggesting that the existence of the Roman Catholic Church proves the true church fell away. I let him know that (1) Christ’s Church was not set up like the Roman Church exists today, as a single organization; (2) the Roman Catholic Church developed over time as power centralized around Rome; and finally (3) that the true church could not have fallen away because Paul wrote that Christ would be glorified in His church throughout all generations (Ephesians 3:21). This LDS was a bit surprised by this information, especially the statement by Paul. I explained that Christ’s church has existed from the beginning, though not as the Roman Church, and concluded our conversation by urging him to turn from the false gods of Mormonism unto the one true God.

Emily joined us Saturday night, and was able to watch an interesting conversation started by a Mormon shot out a one-line jab, not really intended for a meaningful conversation. Thankfully the light turned red as he went to cross the street, and so I walked right up to him =). I handed him my tract with a question on the front: “One god, or many gods?” Inside are excerpts from one of Joseph Smith’s famous sermons he delivered at a funeral. I began by asking him the question on the front.

He responded with a chuckle: “There’s only one god.”

I followed up: “Which one? Because according to Mormonism the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings and three gods.”

LDS: “Well, we only worship one god … our Heavenly Father.”

Me: “I understand that, but you still acknowledge the existence of more than one god?”

LDS: “And?”

Me: “The reason this is important is because the Bible says that there is only one being that is God.”

LDS: “So you believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all the same?”

I spent a few moments explaining the doctrine of the Trinity: One Being of God, three distinct Persons sharing God’s Being, and that the Persons are all coequal and coeternal.

Me: “As a Mormon, is it fair to say that you believe the Bible says that Elojim is the Father while Jehovah is the Son?”

LDS: “Yes.”

Me: “There are numerous places where the Bible says that Elohim is Jehovah. One verse is Psalm 100:3. Let me ask you: how can this verse make sense from your religious perspective? However, it makes perfect sense from a Christian Trinitarian perspective because the Bible describes each of the three divine Persons as Jehovah.”

We wrapped up the conversation shortly after this so my LDS friend could grab a seat. Though it may not sound like it, this entire conversation was less than five minutes long. My hope is that those few brief moments remain fresh in that gentleman’s mind and that his heart is troubled by the false teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I’ll spend some more time reporting on fruitful conversations in a later post, including my favorite conversation with some high school boys. Yup, I saved the best for last =).

Until next time,
Rusty

The "Emerging Conversation"

2009-04-11T00:52:00.003-07:00

I love Phil Johnson’s blog. Am I allowed to come right out and say that? =). Well, I just did. Among the Reformed blogosphere, Phil has been a refreshing voice that is both Biblical and well-balanced (funny that these two qualities should work well together). Among other things, his discussions about the Emergent/ing Church Movement (ECM) have been especially helpful to me as I’ve encountered Emergent Churchers in my own life. Names like Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, Brian Mclaren and Mark Driscoll started popping up, as well as their books. I have watched with eager anticipation as the initial attraction and excitement to this “Christian” fad began to fade; as the holes became more apparent.

Phil recently posted a video of a discussion panel about the “Emergent/ing Conversation” hosted by Christian Book Expo in Dallas, TX. One of the participants was Kevin DeYoung, who represented an opposing voice to the ECM. In his opening statement he read through 2 Timothy 1:8-14 and made six observations from this text:

(1) Paul believed his theology enough to herald it.

(2) Paul was willing to suffer for the proclamation of his theology. He didn’t suffer for telling everyone that God was love (though this is true), he wasn’t thrown into prison for telling people that they needed to forgive each other, he wasn’t going to die as a martyr because he was trying to fund people’s unique spiritual journeys. He was about to die because the message he proclaimed was foolishness to Greeks and a stumbling block to Jews.

(3) Paul’s confidence in suffering came from knowing in whom He believed.

(4) Paul treasured an orthodox standard of Gospel truths.

(5) Paul believed in the task of the preacher – the Church is to guard this good deposit.

(6) Paul believed that championing this theology must be done in the faith and love of Christ Jesus.

Kevin DeYoung concluded his opening remarks by pointing out that 5 out of these 6 observations are questioned by many Emergent/ing books that he’s read. My own reading of the leaders of this movement confirms this.

DeYoung’s first 5 points would sound extremely offensive to members of the ECM because it is inherently opposed to limiting itself to any form of Orthodoxy. It is true that some men, like Mark Driscoll, have officially disassociated with the movement, but the fundamental distinctives that defined them as Emergent/ing remain. I found his second point unbelievably amusing because persecution isn’t a realistic result of an Emergent philosophy of ministry. In fact, the more I’ve thought about it I consider the ECM as a movement of men-pleasers. If they spent half the time preaching the gospel as much as they try to please the desires of men, the gospel message might be heard throughout our nation.

Preceding his comments from 2 Timothy, Mr. DeYoung mentioned that he agrees with many of their analyses, but disagrees with their suggested cures. Again, he is spot on.

The cure for our postmodern culture is not a postmodern approach to the gospel. The cure is the gospel, unashamedly proclaimed in all its fullness. Rather than appealing to the itching desires of sinful men, we ought to be bringers of light who boldly speak the truth of Scripture. Emergent philosophies water down, dumb down, edit and/or remove the gospel just to gain the acceptance of men. What will it gain them in the end? Nothing. Nothing. AOMin is currently using the old slogan, “What you win them with is what you win them to.” In other words, if you preach a watered down message, you will win them to a watered down religion.

I will conclude with a thought from the Apostle Paul, “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18, NASB). It’s like this passage of Scripture and following had the Emerging Church Movement in mind =).

Thanks for reading,
Case

Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical?

2009-04-06T11:50:00.000-07:00

As I worked my way through the testimonies of individuals who left Protestantism towards Rome in Surprised by Truth, I noticed that all of the authors had one thing in common as Protestants: their inability to defend Sola Scriptura. The book barrages the reader with the sentiment of surprise (no pun intended) that the early church fathers sound so “Catholic,” until eventually the Roman claim of infallibility results in the distrust of the perspicuity and authority of the holy Scriptures. When this happens, no argument from Scripture is allowed an impact because only the Roman Catholic Church has the ability to infallibly interpret the Scriptures.

In his chapter titled “From Controversy to Consolation,” Robert Sungenis says something I absolutely agree with: “Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister who converted to the Catholic faith, was particularly helpful. His conversion story, as many have discovered, is one of the most fascinating and challenging testimonies ever heard. He found that the notion of sola scriptura (the formal principle of the Reformation: The Bible is the sole infallible authority for Christians) is so ingrained in Protestant thinking that most take it for granted without any solid proofs” (Madrid, Patrick. Surprised by Truth. Pg. 103. San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). In my experience, this describes the vast majority of Protestants I’ve come across. As Mr. Sungenis describes his own journey towards Rome, it came as a surprise to me that he was influenced by Norman Shepherd and Harold Camping, while traveling between Presbyterian churches and the Church of Christ. He claimed to believe in the Doctrines of Grace for a time then later in the baptismal regeneration taught by the Church of Christ. How does one manage that kind of theological shift? I would submit to you that it is because he was lacking a proper foundation in Sola Scriptura.

Robert Sungenis continues, “Hahn’s study of Scripture led him to the conclusion that sola scriptura is not only unhistorical and unworkable, it was unbiblical. He argued very persuasively that, far from being merely a concept with obscure of minimal scriptural support, sola scriptura is simply not taught anywhere in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly” (Madrid, Patrick. Surprised by Truth. Pg. 103. San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). There you have it: the Bible doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura, therefore it isn’t Biblical.

A Roman Catholic friend of mine recently asked me if I believed the first century church practiced Sola Scriptura? I began by asking, “While the apostles were still living, or afterwards?” Then he was curious about how I would respond to both scenarios. I explained that while the Apostles were still living there was a period of encscripturation, where Scripture was still being written, and therefore it would be impossible to practice Sola Scriptura. But once the gift of apostleship ceased the Church was to look to the only God-breathed and infallible authority on earth: the Scriptures. This means that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught in its fullness in the Bible because the doctrine was not being fully practiced until the cessation of the apostles. What we do see are clear Scriptural explanations about the nature, authority and purposes of Scripture. Also, transition texts like Hebrews 1, and 2 Timothy 3 point to our spiritual guide once the apostles were gone.

It is a shame that Mr. Sungenis didn’t perform a higher quality of research while seeking answers to Catholic claims (does that phrase sound oddly familiar to anyone else? =)).

One final thought – since I am in complete agreement with Mr. Sungenis’ analysis of how well the average Protestant knows Sola Scriptura, what are we to do about it? Firstly, don’t take the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for granted. We cannot afford to assume it’s true. We need to turn to the Scriptures to increase our understanding of the nature and purpose of the inspired Word. The consequences of ignoring this great truth can be disastrous … as the testimony of Robert Sungenis makes clear. Might we be able to rejoice with the Psalmist who wrote, “105Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105, NASB).

Thanks,
Rusty

Jesus: "Peter, you are the Rock."

2009-04-02T12:25:00.003-07:00

“One problem with this interpretation, which many Protestant Bible scholars admit, is that while Petros and petra did have these meanings in some ancient Greek poetry, the distinction was gone by the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was written. At that time the two words meant the same thing: a rock. Another problem is that when he addressed Peter, Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, a cousin language of Hebrew. In Aramaic there is no difference between the two words which in Greek are rendered as petros and petra. They are both kepha; that’s why Paul often refers to Peter as Cephas (cf. 1 Cor. 15:5, Gal 2:9). What Christ actually said was, “You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.” But even if the words Petros and petra did have different meanings, the Protestant reading of two different “rocks” would not fit the context” (Madrid, Patrick. Surprised by Truth. Pg. 68. San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994).

This is a selection from James Akin’s chapter in Surprised By Truth, a response to Protestant interpretations of Matthew 16:13-20, with an emphasis on verse 18. Among the common interpretations of this passage of Scripture, Akin is here attempting to demonstrate that the words for “Peter” and “rock” can be equated to mean the same thing. In other words, his interpretation of verse 18 goes something like this: “Peter, you are the rock I will build my church upon.” But this is not what the text says, and as much as Roman Catholic apologists wish it were different, the Greek words Petros and petra are not identical.

I believe it is for this reason that Mr. Akin, and other Roman Catholic apologists put forth this unique “It was said in Aramaic, so it doesn’t matter how the Greek reads” argument. The major problem with this line of reasoning is that it was in Koine Greek that this conversation was recorded and inspired. I hope James Akin is not suggesting that the God-breathed account of Matthew 16 contradicts the conversation between Jesus and his disciples? I am also glad that Akin does not here attempt to defend the idea that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic – an indefensible idea that is limited to theory because there is no manuscript evidence to support this – though Patrick Madrid in Pope Fiction does make this claim about an Aramaic original of the Gospel according to Matthew.

Moving past the Greek terms “Peter” and “rock,” I think it is important to mention that I believe Jesus is addressing Peter about the rock, and not calling him the rock. When Jesus speaks to Peter he is addressing him in the second person. However, “this rock” is said in the third person using the demonstrative pronoun “this” to clearly differentiate between Peter and the rock.

This also makes perfect sense with the flow of the passage. Consider who the subject is … is it Peter? No, rather the subject is Christ: “He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (13). Again, he asks more directly, “But who do you say that I am?” (15). Peter confesses Christ’s messiahship, which is followed by a statement reaffirming the subject: “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (17). The reason Peter is called blessed by Christ is because of the received revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Messiah. Then follows the disputed verse 18: “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church.”

Note that Jesus does not say what Roman Catholic apologists wish he said: “Peter, you are the rock I will build my church upon” or even “Peter = the rock.”

Roman Catholicism is in an odd position when we consider the doctrine of papal primacy. They claim to be ultimate authority in all things relating to faith and practice, which can be expressed as Sola Ecclesia, or the Church Alone. Furthermore, it is “Mother Church” who infallibly defines and interprets the Scriptures, and can alone guide Christianity because only she has been entrusted with the unwritten traditions passed down through the Roman Magisterium, with the Pope at her head. Yet the Roman Church appeals to the Scriptures to support her ultimate authority, especially with regards to papal infallibility. Matthew 16 has the honor of being such a passage.

The Roman Catholic position bears the burden to prove not simply that their understanding of Matthew 16 is possible, but that it is absolutely true. Unfortunately for Rome, there are strong reasons for believing that “the rock” upon which Christ’s church was built was the confession that Jesus was the Messiah made by Peter and the disciples. Verse 20 concludes their conversation, remaining on the messiahship of Christ, “Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.”

Within the next few days I hope to also interact with a few more comments from Surprised by Truth as well as Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction.

Thanks for reading,
Case of Base

The Honeymoon is Ovuh

2009-03-30T11:40:00.000-07:00

“Only nine months ago, when he addressed an estimated 200,000 people in Germany, Barack Obama was heralded as “president of the world.” But now that he's president of the United States, the world doesn't appear to be following up on its endorsement. From France to Poland, from the Czech Republic to China, many nations are rebuffing the president and offering little wiggle room for him to negotiate economic and security policies” [FNN]

Anyone who was paying the slightest attention to President Bush’s eight years in office will remember that one of the common cries from the political Left was that Bush was destroying America’s reputation around the world. This was primarily applied to the former President’s War on Terror, even going so far as to say that America was creating terrorists because of our actions.

Which is why when I read the comments from world leaders linked in the above article, I find it ironic that Obama is now the one the world has no room for warm fuzzies. This means that Obama's honeymoon is ovuh, and I can't help but smile at this. Let me quickly remind the reader that we’re the most powerful nation in the world, the United States of America. We are the big kid on the block. It shouldn’t surprise us that we receive the most attention and criticism from even Western nations. However, even the more Socialist-leaning Europe is startled at our current President’s economic plans. France’s President Sarkozy stated, “We consider that in Europe we have already invested a lot for the recovery, and that the problem is not about spending more, but putting in place a system of regulation so that the economic and financial catastrophe that the world is seeing does not reproduce itself.”

You know something? Sarkozy is absolutely right. Europe has spent a lot; too much (the tendency of Socialists and other liberals). But European leaders have enough sense to know that when the United States spends more money on a stimulus package than Socialists do, that kind of a stimulus package could be disastrous. So much for Americans gaining the respect of the world =). For goodness’ sake, we have China lecturing us on economics.

Michael Medved commented on his radio talk-show this week that he believes former President Bush did spend too much money. He increased the national deficit, increased spending and increased government overall. Aside from his tax-cuts, most people believe that Bush was a disappointment towards his economic policies. So why would Obama, who wants to increase the national deficit, increase spending and increase government – each to a much greater extent – be considered a good solution to our problem? In other words, Bush is partly at fault for our economic woes. Why then would Obama, who is doing more of the same ol’ same ol’ work out differently? This is an important question that ought to be considered by Obama’s administration.

One thing’s for sure, it’ll be an interesting four years =)

Case of Base

Sweet and Elderly ... Socialists!

2009-03-27T11:48:00.001-07:00

T’other day I had the pleasure of meeting a married couple, probably in their mid 70’s, at my favorite local coffee shop. The older gentleman first introduced himself to me and we hit it off right away. He turned out to be an absolutely charming fellow who struck me as one who enjoys a good conversation. And so we conversed.

Our topics for discussion flowed naturally from their world travels, life experiences, until the inevitable was bound to come up in a conversation like this one: the current recession. It only took one, maybe two sentences out of each of our mouths to realize where the other was coming from. Both the older gentleman and his lovely wife were amazed that someone as young as I am was not more liberal than they were.

I took the opportunity to politely mention that I believe that “in many cases less government involvement, specifically aimed at Social welfare, can accomplish more of the same things that everybody wants.”

Sweet Old Man: “You know … in Germany they have a safety net for people to fall back on, and they absolutely love it.”

Casey: “I understand where you’re coming from, and the European perspective on things, but while Socialism sounds wonderful it just doesn’t compare with Capitalistic free-market societies.”

Sweet Old Lady: “You sound like a Republican.” [Said to be a bit insulting, but was not crossing any lines =)]

Casey: “Actually, I am a registered Republican, but I am far more conservative than the Republican Party, especially when it comes to moral and fiscal concerns.”

Sweet Old Man: “Well, it appears we’ll have to agree to disagree.”

Casey: “That’s the remarkable thing about democratic forms of government: the option to have disagreement with the government. Would you agree the same cannot be descriptive of purely Socialistic societies?”

Sweet Old Man: [With a twinkle in his eye and a brilliant smile] “You’re a clever one.”

From there we moved on to discuss other things, but I was astounded that such sweet people who enjoy luxuries like world travel would endorse Socialism. I’m finding more and more folks are open to Socialism … even Marxism! It seems to me that people are fearful of openly affirming Capitalism and free-market economies. Whenever I mention the subject of an increase in taxes people’s heads seem to turn the other way, as though they would rather not think about it.

Conversations like this one cause me to be thankful and to count my blessings, because we do live in the greatest nation in the world with more freedoms than any other people group.

Rustoleum

The Gospel of Peace

2009-03-22T22:07:00.001-07:00

It happened my sophomore year of high school. I was very interested in dating a Roman Catholic girl I knew from the school band, until one day we began sharing our religious experiences. She was utterly baffled by the concept of my being “saved” as a past-tense, once-for-all time event. You can be sure I was equally surprised by her lack of understanding, and her questioning the fact that a person can be certain of their salvation in this life.

Years later, and with the help of some solid Christian reading material, I came to the realization that the differences between what I believe about the gospel and what Roman Catholicism believes about the gospel actually means that they are two different gospels.

Roman Catholicism has been on my brain for the past few weeks due to the fact that God has provided me the opportunity to discuss our differences with a few Roman Catholic friends. Two issues have remained at the epicenter of our discussions, and were the topics I was hoping for: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

To prepare for these discussions (which are still ongoing), I re-read a few books on the subject, and was reminded again by the stark contrast between my gospel and the gospel of Rome. Commenting on the uncertainty known by Roman Catholics regarding their justification before God, Dr. Ludwig Ott writes:

“The reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary for achieving justification” (Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Pg. 262. Rockford, Ill: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974).

Did you catch all that? Without a special revelation from God a faithful Roman Catholic cannot have certainty that he has completed all the conditions for attaining a right-standing before God. Contrast that with Romans 5:1, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (NASB). How is a sinful person justified? By faith. Is it by works at all? The Bible is very clear that a sinner’s justification before God has absolutely nothing to do with works: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28, NASB). This is as close a statement expressing the exact sentiment of “Faith Alone” as you will find in the New Testament.

Peace with God; every sinful creature is in desperate need of this. If a gospel (good news) does not provide peace, then it is not really good news at all, is it? I would submit to you that the gospel of Rome is not good news. It is not good news to try and mix faith with works, in hopes that the combining of your own effort plus God’s effort will result in salvation. The Scriptures actually condemn this idea (Romans 9:30-33).

On Wednesday nights, I share the privilege of teaching the junior high class at my church. It took about 3 years, but we finally worked our way through Paul’s letter to the Romans. If they remember nothing else from Romans, I hope my students remember the doctrine of justification by faith alone that I pounded into their heads each week. If so, the entire three years will have been worthwhile. I agree with Martin Luther who said that the church stands or falls on the doctrine of Justification.

A question I will be asking my Roman Catholic friends is, whether they can call themselves the blessed man that Paul speaks about in Romans 4:6-8? I believe that the one firmly trusting in the gospel of Peace is able to make this claim with confidence, resting on the finished work of the perfect Savior of sinners, Jesus Christ.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Our Little Corner of Cyberspace

2009-03-22T17:13:00.004-07:00

Welcome to our little corner of cyberspace. If you’ve made it this far more than likely you have a personal connection with either myself or one of the other contributors to this blog. I have been a denizen of the Blogosphere since 2003 but have found myself slacking in the realm of creating substantive posts. I thought I would pull a TeamPyro, along with many others, and create a new blog with multiple authors to keep the content flowing and the discussion more interesting.

What you should expect to find here are topics primarily focused on … whatever is on our hearts and minds at that time =). Since the three of us share a likeminded faith, you will undoubtedly see topics about true religion, apologetics, politics and social issues. Other quirky subjects like sports and personal updates will find its way as caffeinated-musings.

… Suppose I should mention that along with myself, Scott, Mark and Eli will be my partners in crime as we stumble our way through the perils of the Blogosphere. If I may take a moment to brag about each of these gentlemen, you will hopefully gain a glimpse of my excitement to start this writing project with them. Scott has been my best friend since junior high, and has turned into a brilliant writer. His ability to string words together to communicate his thoughts and ideas is an art form. He is currently working on his first fiction novel, to which I look forward to reading (maybe he’ll let me proof-read sometime? =)). Mark is another close friend and shines best when he is considering and communicating what is most passionate to him. He is one of the men I trust to go to gain a better understanding of the Scriptures. I can honestly say that I regularly learn from him. Last, but certainly not least, is my good friend Eli. Eli and I met at Starbucks years ago, and it was Eli who first introduced me to coffee, believe it or not. The first thing I noticed about Eli is that he is a man powerful in the Scriptures. I will never forget the day he walked me through Ephesians 1:13-15 and made sense of it for me. He has been a partner in the gospel with me, and I am excited to work with him in this.

Each of us is looking forward to getting started, as Mark said it best, “I have a lot to say; this will be perfect!” My hope is that this blog will be an encouragement to our audience, a challenge to differing perspectives, and above all: God-honoring. We welcome your interaction in the form of comments and emails. Please, don’t be shy.

In the words of Calvin: “Every day I have to get up and go to school. Nothing ever changes. It’s just school, school, school. But not today. Today, I go for the gusto.” (Watterson, Bill. The Indispensible Calvin and Hobbes. Missouri: Universal Press, 1992).

I’m with Calvin on this one.

Rusty

Musings From Our Caffeinated Highs

Timeless Truth and Timely Methods

“LGBT”–Just When I Thought I Had it…

Love Triumphs Over Truth?

Today is a Sad Day for Us All

If You’re Going to Believe in Predestination…

Action and Paction this Summer

All So One Person Isn’t Offended

Grammar. And verily, much w00tage did thus fill the land =)

Jesus taught us to pray this way

God is Love

The Greatest Compliment I Have Ever Received

Calvinism: An Introduction to an Introduction

Should you believe in the Trinity?

My God can save anybody

God desires all men to be saved

An Unexpected Turn of Events

Everything I have seen confirms my worst fears

8 “But of the Son He says,” … 10 “And,” …

What to do with Christians in name-only?

When you judge others do you also judge yourself?

This is Not a Review, I Say!

A New Design for a New Year

Word Travels Really Fast - Part 2

Word Travels Fast

August 14 to Present Recap

Freedom from Porn

Racism

LOST is nearing the end *sniffle sniffle*

You mean the President isn't a gamer?!

The Tea Partier's Rallying Cry

Health Insurance a Natural Right?

Socialized Medicine

Too Much to Tell

Compatibalist Freedom

Preparation for Witnessing to Latter-day Saints

Foreordination and human responsibility

Which gospel to believe?

Free Will and 2 Peter 3:9

Trouble Loving My Enemies

A Government Option Becomes the Only Option

Conversation with a Latter-day Saint

Lunch-Time Conversations

The beauty of the Ant

No Such Thing as a Hyphenated American

The Half-Blood Prince

My List of Sins

The Weary and Heavy-Laden

Why do any choose to follow Christ?

A&D, Night at the Museum 2, and UP

Page Five

A Fantastic Tale, Full of Adventure

Statement from the White House

Half Right

Seattle, in All Her Glory

Because I Say So

A Change in the Timeline

Self-Idolization

Loveless Intellectualism... or is it?

Homosexual Super-Rights and the Thought-Police

Some Light Reading

God created the earth in SIX literal days?

Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

Witnessing to Those Who Believe They're Persecuted

The "Emerging Conversation"

Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical?

Jesus: "Peter, you are the Rock."

The Honeymoon is Ovuh

Sweet and Elderly ... Socialists!

The Gospel of Peace

Our Little Corner of Cyberspace

LOST is nearing the end sniffle sniffle