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
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Half Right
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
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
Friday, May 29, 2009
Seattle, in All Her Glory
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
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
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Because I Say So
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
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
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Change in the Timeline
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
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
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Self-Idolization
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
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
Monday, May 4, 2009
Loveless Intellectualism... or is it?
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
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
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
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Some Light Reading
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
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
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
God created the earth in SIX literal days?
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
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
Monday, April 20, 2009
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!
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 friends 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
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
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Witnessing to Those Who Believe They're Persecuted
“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
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
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The "Emerging Conversation"
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
(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
Thanks for reading,
Case
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical?
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
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
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Jesus: "Peter, you are the Rock."
“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
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)