Faith Redeemed

The Suffering Christian

2012-01-30T23:16:00.000-05:00

The Suffering Christian

"The suffering of the Christian or anyone else in this world is never ultimately an accident. All suffering is within the pale of divine sovereignty. All suffering comes within the broader context of the sovereignty of God."

- R.C. Sproul, "Reason to Believe"

Quote - Innocent Native Who Never Hears Christ

2011-12-15T22:06:00.000-05:00

Innocent Native Who Never Hears Christ

"The innocent native who never hears of Christ is in excellent shape, and we need not be anxious about his redemption. The innocent person doesn’t need to hear of Christ. He has no need of redemption. God never punishes innocent people. The innocent person needs no Savior; he can save himself by his innocence."

- R.C. Sproul, "Reason to Believe"

Quote - History of God's Grace

2011-12-15T21:37:00.000-05:00

Quote - History of God's Grace

"The Old Testament, in spite of its manifestations of the wrath of God, remains a history of God’s grace and long-suffering with a rebellious people. There is wrath unparalleled in the New Testament and grace overwhelming in the Old Testament. A false dichotomy between the Testaments is foreign to the biblical writers themselves."
- R.C. Sproul, "Reason to Believe"

A Sober Perspective for Christmas - 2011

2011-12-08T20:43:00.001-05:00

A Sober Perspective for Christmas - 2011

What Is Christmas About? - Paul Washer

Christmas is about a baby that grew up to be a King and threw himself in our place to satisfy God's wrath. - as paraphrased by Paul Washer.

As we celebrate Christmas this season, let us never forget that its not about materialism or even the traditions we have etched in our minds from childhood. As Christians, we aren't really even called to celebrate the holiday per Biblical mandate. That's not to say, however, there's anything wrong with Christians lifting praise up to God as we celebrate the season. After all, we shouldn't ever cease in lifting our praise up to the Lord in all we do while we are here in the world.

If you can celebrate or recognize the holiday in good conscience, my bid to you is - Merry Christmas! If you can't celebrate or recognize the holiday in good conscience, my bid to you is - God bless you brother/sister! Never violate your conscience and sew the seeds that yield a hard heart. I not only respect your conviction but encourage you to continue to follow after the Spirit.

God bless all my brothers and sisters in Christ. I love you all very much. If you are reading this and you haven't received the Holy Spirit, then my love goes out to you as well. My hope for you is for God to open your eyes, ears and heart and receive the conviction of the Gospel so that you may believe. With God, nothing is impossible and there is a reason you're reading this right now at this very moment. There is no coincidence, only God's will.

In the love of Christ,

Wade C. Davis

Faith Is Like A Roller Coaster...But More Exciting

2011-10-11T20:27:00.000-04:00

Faith Is Like A Roller Coaster...But More Exciting

As Christians, we are commanded to go out into the world and spread the Gospel. We are to give a reason for the hope that is in us and be prepared to give an answer. Not all Christians are, however, theologians that live and breathe apologetics and when faced with tough questions, they give a somewhat obligatory answer in an effort to get their backs off of the ropes. They simply tell their inquisitor to read the Bible and assure them that they'll find their answer.

This week, I've been talking with a friend that is searching for answers and she tells me that Christians never really answer her questions and just keep telling her to read the Bible. She says that this would be the equivalent of someone asking her why she likes Star Trek and telling them to watch an episode to find out. After they watch the episode, they come back and ask her the same question again and she repeatedly gives the same answer each and everytime the anti-Star Trek enthusiast asks about the appeal of the show.

I admit that my friend is onto something. Sometimes we all need further clarification and for someone to tell you to go back over and over again to find the answer when you've failed to see it all of the other times, seems to be an exercise in futility. This is not to discourage anyone from reading the Bible nor is it an attempt in any way to suggest that we can't find the answers to our inquisition from reading scripture. In fact, if we are ever to know anything about God, it is through His word that we find in scripture that contains His revelation.

As a way to encourage my new friend, I suggested that even if the advice from Christians has failed to satisfy her inquisition then for her to consider that it all hasn't been for nothing. In an attempt to find answers, my friend claims that she has read the book from cover to cover. In an earlier exchange, she very eloquently tells me;

"The whole story of the Bible is like a metaphorical story of someone growing up. Adam and Eve is seen as infancy, the whole Old Testament is like childhood and adolescence, struggling to find out what is good and what's wrong while trying to live by their parent's rules (often messing up and getting "grounded"). The New Testament is adulthood. The age of true discovery and love towards others and the need to make a difference in not only ones own life but the life's of the people around them."

Assuming that I'm not being duped and my friend came up with this revelation all on her own, then I would say that her efforts spent reading the Bible has not been a wasted effort by any means. Although Christians' default answer to read more scripture may not be as helpful as it could be, they may be nevertheless yielding fruit in a greater yield than you or I could ever produce from our own explanations. It could be that a suggestion to read scripture may not produce immediate answers for today's questions but nevertheless be providing a foundation of faith.

We live by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). But how do we get this faith? Paul tells us that faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word of God (Romans 10:17). How can hearing give faith though? Someone can obviously have faith without ever having picked up a Bible and without ever having read the first verse of scripture. Paul, however, isn’t talking about a generic faith that anyone can have that could just as easily be applied to a golden calf as it could be given as an expression of love for Yahweh. Paul is talking about a God saving faith. Paul is talking about the the kind of faith that makes us heirs in Christ. Paul is talking about the faith that we have when we believe the gospel. This faith in God that we have through the Gospel, however, isn’t always a popular practice and is often ridiculed by others. This is why Paul tells us, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek..” (Romans 1:16 NASB).

I can sit here and tell you about faith and talk about it all day long. It isn’t, however, the same as you having a first hand knowledge of it. You, for example, can read about roller coasters and your friends could tell you about riding a roller coaster but you are never going to really know the power and exhilaration of a roller coaster until you do what?

You are really never going to know the power and exhilaration of riding a roller coaster until you ride one. All descriptions and summations of riding a roller coaster will pail in comparison to your actual experience. Similarly, all descriptions and summations of faith will pail in the actual experience of living it and in the actual experience of practicing it. God saving faith, in other words, isn’t something that you put up and store in a box once you have it. God saving faith is something that must be lived in order grow and exacerbate spiritual maturity. God saving faith is a living thing that must be practiced so that it will bear fruit. It is the fruit that reveals the nature of the tree. Apple trees don’t produce peaches. Just the same, a good tree doesn’t produce bad fruit and a bad tree doesn’t produce good fruit (Matthew 7:16-18), God saving faith will produce the fruit of life and all other kinds of faith will leave idolaters dead in their sins.

As spectacular as it may be to ride a roller coaster, to compare it to God saving faith is an un-fair comparison - an injustice, if you will. Even the acrobatics of a roller coaster that produces excitement and exhilaration for the passenger, can't compare to the inexhaustible grace that our Father in Heaven displays to us when we are in the faith that gives eternal life. Both, however, produce an experience that you can't know if you aren't a participant. As Christians, we need to press forward, continue on with the good fight as we actively live in our faith and not by our sight and I promise that you'll be on a ride that is infinitely more exciting than any roller coaster.

May it all be for His glory,

Marriage

2011-09-11T03:07:00.000-04:00

Marriage

Here is a playlist pertaining to marriage. As of now, this play list consists of the following videos;

"Why Is Marriage Difficult" - Paul Washer

"Biblical Courtship (Session 5)" - Paul Washer

"Sex and Marriage" - Steve Lawson

"Marriage and Divorce" - Steve Lawson

Everyone may benefit from the teachings in this list, however, others may especially benefit. Please consider sharing this list with anyone that is dating, considering marriage as well as persons that are already married and may be considering divorce.

This playlist will most likely grow and be expanded upon as time passes. For the moment, however, this should be a good start for anyone that may be interested in the subject or wishing to conduct a Bible study about marriage. If this is the case then perhaps this playlist will hopefully act as a valuable resource, etc.

God bless,
WCD

Paul Washer - Biblical Womanhood

2011-08-16T05:55:00.000-04:00

Paul Washer - Biblical Womanhood

Wonderful sermon by Paul Washer that is a must see on Biblical womanhood.

It is my hope that mothers will share this with their daughters so that they can discover the beautiful truths about womanhood that have been put in place by God.

Grace &Peace,

WCD

Divided the Movie Preview

2011-08-09T18:05:00.001-04:00

Official Divided the Movie (HD Version) from NCFIC on Vimeo.

I just finished watching this and this is a must see.

Find out how the modern day youth ministry that are in our churches do not fit into the biblical model as to how God instructs us to raise our children.

This is a very controversial issue, however, that does not mean that we should avoid it, neglect to take heed of the message at hand nor dismiss it because it may not be something that we want to hear.

Watch the movie and discuss it with your pastor and even your youth minister. Do so in a loving manner but please let us give this topic the dialogue that it deserves.

Available online for FREE until September 2011.

View the official website: dividedthemovie.com/

You can purchase the movie (along with other resources) at dividedthemovie.com/#buylink

Please help pass this video along to thousands of parents and pastors:

Facebook: facebook.com/dividedthemovie

Twitter: twitter.com/#!/search/http%3A%2F%2Fdividedthemovie.com%2F

You can also blog about it. For a recommended blog post, please see: dividedthemovie.com/#sharelink

Please Help with Supporting Justin Peters' Ministries

2011-07-21T02:35:00.002-04:00

Please Help with Supporting Justin Peters' Ministries

Justin Peters has graciously allowed me to post his video series on my YouTube channel for a season. If you have not viewed them yet, then you may want to make time and view these videos that are a must see if you desire to learn about the Word of Faith Movement. As difficult as it can be to teach about the Word of Faith Movement, Justin Peters delivers his message in truth and sobriety and at the same time, he does all of this in the love of Christ.

Please place it within your consideration to support Justin Peters' Ministries. You can do this by either making a donation, purchasing a DVD/s or by booking an appearance accordingly. Please also let Justin Peters know how much you appreciate his efforts that he makes through his ministries. Also please let him know that you have become aware of his ministry through my blog/YouTube channel as a way of encouragement. There are a lot of difficulties in this world and to encourage our brother in Christ that is working in the Kingdom of God is a blessing and opportunity that God has placed our way.

If you want to support Justin Peters Ministries, please click on the link below;

Justin Peters Ministries is a non-profit 501c(3) organization. Justin Peters Ministries relies upon the generosity of fellow believers who support and believe in this unique ministry. Any gifts are tax deductible and genuinely appreciated.

http://justinpeters.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=4&Itemid=18

Also, thank you for visiting my blog and YouTube channel. Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to share the love of Christ with you. May it all be for the glory of our Heavenly Father, the much beloved Son and Holy Ghost.

Grace & Peace,

WCD

Please DO NOT send me any money. I am not affiliate with Justin Peters Ministries.

God bless!

RC Sproul Interviews DA Carson on Biblical Exegesis

2011-07-06T15:02:00.001-04:00

RC Sproul Interviews DA Carson on Biblical Exegesis

Christopher Hitchens vs WIlliam Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate

2011-06-18T15:08:00.000-04:00

Christopher Hitchens vs WIlliam Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate

D.A. Carson - How Do You Explain the Gospel in Five Minutes

2011-06-13T07:33:00.000-04:00

D.A. Carson - How Do You Explain the Gospel in Five Minutes

Thor - A Real World Savior?

2011-05-19T21:47:00.003-04:00

Thor - A Real World Savior?

Image Credit

Marvel has decided to open this years' series of comic films with an introduction to Thor. I had the opportunity to see the film this past Saturday. What would've been more befitting is if I had seen the film on Thursday instead - given that Thursday is Thor's Day.

Although I've never been an avid comic reader, I have always had an affinity for super-heros. The theologian in me appreciates an illustration of evil in epic proportions. The elevation of evil on such a grand scale requires an epic hero and this is the function of the super-hero. The super-hero has been endowed with phenomenal power as a means to combat an all encompassing evil that threatens the well-being of the whole human race for eternity - if left unchecked. This is really no different, however, than the stories of mythology found in antiquity. Mythological heros, like their modern counterparts, both take on a soteriological quality. By taking on the role as savior, the very fate of mankind depends on the outcome of armageddon like battles that only true heros can reign in victory and defeat the forces of evil.

Through the power of cinema, if we allow ourselves to be carried away with illusion of film, we can indulge in an escape and envision ourselves as a super-hero fighting and conquering evil. When Thor is used as the instrument of this fantasy fulfillment, we find ourselves not only fighting evil through the use of a hammer but we find ourselves involved in a fantasy that has real world roots as well.

Long before there was a Marvel Comics, there was the god of Thunder in Norse mythology. Merrill Kaplan, assistant professor of Folklore and Scandinavian Studies at The Ohio State University, explains that her students sometimes carry a look of confusion when they realize that Marvel Thor is not the same as the one that we have from mythology. It's also true, as well, that Marvel movie Thor may not be identical to the Marvel comic book Thor that you grew up reading. I think that we have all come to and have accepted this realization; movies rarely, if ever, stay true to literary canon. With this in mind, it should not surprise us that the hero in film does not stay true to his mythological archetype. Cinematic Thor, for example, has blond hair and a neatly short trimmed beard that are more at home in Hollywood than the rustic red haired and thick bearded Thor found in Norse mythology. The Cinematic Thor has also reached a proportion that outmatches his mythical counterpart. Movie Thor does not require a belt nor glove to endow him with the strength to pick up his hammer unlike the mythical Thor that requires these items.

Regardless of how movie Thor stacks up against the mythological version, one thing has remained a constant. Thor in any variety is a hero. Both in film and mythology, Thor protects the Earth and saves us from the giants of evil. Thor has great strength that is a differentiating factor that we can never imitate. His heart that he has in all he does, however, is a quality that we can aspire to have in spite of our many limitations. It is in our similarities that we want to identify with Thor. We want to be strong like a Norris mythical god and we want to be exalted the way Thor is when he saves the day. We want to be loved the way Thor is when he receives pagan homage. The Thor of mythology, for example, was praised by pagans that asked for success in battle. Similarly, we may want others to submit to our authority and ask for our approval concerning a variety of matters. The Thor in mythology had places and people named after him. At the same time, how much do we long for recognition and acknowledgement from others? The Thor in mythology even found his way in prose by being the subject matter in poetry of the era. In the same way, how many of us seek a celebrity status or hold a desire to see our mention immortalized in history books?

As much as we long to identify with Thor through his strengths, we perhaps may identify with him more readily through his weaknesses. The Thor that I found in the movie was an immature man that had not yet learned to harness his strength through the power of his intellect. It took the wisdom and love of a father that would teach this god a lesson that only a king could teach. We are by no means a mythological god but how well do we identify with the role of a son that is lovingly disciplined by and through the love of a Father (Hebrews 12:6)?

In the movie, Thor is a savior that is full of pride and vanity. Thor's father strips him of his deistic power so that he can learn humility and perhaps develop compassion for those that he is predestined to protect. In reality, our Father who art in Heaven has given us Christ crucified. The Father sent the Son, not as a punishment for any wrong doing on the Son's part, but to endure punishment for the sins incurred on our part. Thor had to satisfy the wrath of a god for his wrong doings. He had to suffer loss in order to be made worthy. In Christ, we are adopted as sons because Christ endured the wrath of God on our behalf. As new creatures in Christ, we loose our pride and vanity - not to be worthy but because He is worthy!

With Thor, we are presented with action packed scenes full of stunts and feats as our hero fights Frost Giants. This, however, plays as more of a backdrop for another theme that permeates throughout the movie. Given that the focus of the film includes the dynamics between a father and a son and includes jealousy that an inferior brother has for his superior sibling as well as an all out effort for reconciliation for all parties involved, etc, Thor is about family. It is this familial theme that is perhaps more endearing to us than our desire to envision ourselves as superheros fighting to save the day. It is the family that everyone in all cultures and in all eras that unites all of humanity. In the beginning, starting with the book of Genesis, we start with the making of the family. As with all families, at some point in time we encounter discontent, pride and a lack of faith. In Thor, the burden of reconciliation to restore the family rests on Thor's mighty shoulders. In reality, we are too weak to reconcile matters on our own part. In reality, we have to become less so that He may be more. In reality, it is not our deeds that reconcile us unto God but it is by His grace that we are saved through our faith that we have in Him that saves us. It is only through Christ crucified that we are reconciled unto God.

If the burdens of this world overwhelm you and you lack the power of Thor to overcome your battles, rest in Christ for He is the true vine and we are the branch (John 15:5). It is only through Christ will we be reconciled unto God and be a part of an eternal family that has been restored according to His glory, according to His will that rests in His good pleasure. Take comfort in that our restoration does not rest in winning epic battles found in a tale of Thor wielding a hammer. We are, instead, made worthy and restored through the blood of the Lamb and it is with His sword we fight the good battle and are made victors through Christ.

May it all be for His glory,

Wade C. Davis

Is Separation of Church and State Important?

2011-05-17T21:42:00.004-04:00

Is Separation of Church and State Important?

Image Credit

As a part of my YouTube ministry, I respond to various dialogue as well as questions that are posed to me. This week, I have decided to post a question that I've recently answered. Please feel free to leave your comments, thoughts and ideas that you have on the subject as well.

I will put out the disclaimer that this subject/issue is one that I'm still learning about. Given that I'm not an authority by any means on the subject matter at hand, I may stand to correction on some of my points, etc.

Here are two questions posed to me and my responses;

"Well my first question is do you think that a separation between church and state is important?"

Yes, I think Separation between Church and State is important.

Originally, this term - "Seperation of Church & State" originated in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the government would not interfere with the church. Over time, unfortunately, this term/phrase has been corrupted and twisted around so that a lot of people actually believe that it is a part of the Constitution. Along with this perversion of the term, a new meaning has arisen. Instead of separating the government from the church, concerns are now focused on separating the church from the schools. As a part of re-writing American Civics, a phrase that was never in the Constitution is now thought to be the legality that is in place that keeps schools from allowing religious practice, etc. In reality, the term "Separation of Church & State" was supposed to encourage religious freedom, not stifle it.

The Constitution is not equal to scripture. It is, however, not only ethical but a legal binding document that operates as the infrastructure of our Government as well as Governmental laws that our society operates asunder. The Constitution is a brilliant document and I feel that we are very fortunate and blessed to have it as the cornerstone of our government makeup.

Our Founding Fathers were not perfect but they did live through religious persecution as exercised through a monarchy. It was their intent to construct a country that would be rid of religious persecution. This means that freedom to practice religion of your choosing should be honored and upheld. The Constitution upholds this right as well as ensuring us that the Government will not coerce us into practicing a religion of the government's choosing but of our own. The Constitution gives us a government that is pro-religion, not anti-religion.

"If so wouldn't it be more important not to show any sort of religious bias by teaching an idea like creation in schools?"

I think this question contains the presupposition that creation is intrinsically linked to religion.

You could teach creation directly from the Bible. If you were to do so, there are different angles you could employ with this approach. You could teach from the presupposition that this is the inerrant word of God. By doing this, you don't question the data/text but employ methods to extract meaning from the text to get a true understanding of what the text is proclaiming. This would be a religious teaching and is not permissible as the law stands today.

You could teach Creation from the Bible but instead of going from under the presupposition that it's the inerrant word of God, it is a philosophical approach from history that some hold to today.

Yet, another way to teach creation from the Bible is to teach it as a modern-day philosophical approach and report the modern-day science that is blended in with this ideology.

Before I continue, I will take a brief pause to say, some people will insist that it is illegal to teach anything out of the Bible and that it is un-Constitutional. In reality, the Supreme Court has never ruled against teaching the Bible in schools. The Bible may be taught in a public school as a way of illustrating a historical and or literary context, a'la the "1963 US Supreme Court ruling that said schools could teach about religion in a secular way" (1). It would be completely legal for your English teacher, for example, to teach the entire book of Psalms in a public school so long as he/she is teaching it as literature.

Now do I think we should be teaching hardcore doctrine in schools? No, I don't. The schools, to be frankly honest about it, are not equipped to teach appropriate doctrine; this is the role of the church, the pastor, the theologian, the exegete, not the schools.

Now at the same time, do I think the schools should avoid mention of the Bible at all cost? No, I don't. I don't think there is a thing in the world that is wrong with saying something like, "The Bible says this..." or "The Bible says that..." or even, "Christians believe this..." or "Christians believe that...".

Another presupposition that your question has is that to teach creation is to teach bias and to teach other things, like Evolution, for example, is to teach something that is lacking in bias. The truth of the matter is that people have bias and they can find ways to implement this bias regardless of the discipline.

How are theories formed?

A scientist observes nature and from his observations, he ponders and logically concludes, that he suspects that the world operates in a certain way.

Our scientist now has to test his idea to see if it holds true.

Through the employment of the scientific method, our scientist has an experiment and a control in place and waits to see what kind of results he will get that will suggest validation or invalidation of his theory.

Now on the very basis of this illustration, there doesn't appear to be any bias built into the theory, etc. This is not, however, where the problem arises. The problem comes in the interpretation of data. We are never given a full written report that summarizes the results of our experiment. Our data will require not only an interpretation but an interpretation that is guided by our worldview.

If our data yields, GODISNOWHERE.

One person can concluded that the data says that God Is No Where.

Another person, however, can come along and say that the data says, God Is Now Here.

Our worldview intrinsically has bias built into it and to say that religion is full of bias but science lacks bias is not intellectually honest.

I haven't even talked about all of the other external factors that affect science. Just the fact that you investigate X and not Y is due to bias given that everything that you could investigate has alternatives accordingly.

Without going into all of it, there's politics and monetary matters that influences science as well.

(1) http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p11s01-legn.html

I left my correspondance at this point but I suspect that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps I'll do a follow up with this piece sometime soon as a way of expanding upon the many things that I did not address here at this writing.

Please feel free to leave your comments in regards to this matter. I'd love to here what you have to say.

May it all be for His glory,

Wade C. Davis

Alvin Plantinga - Science and Religion: Where the Real Conflict Lies

2011-05-15T18:26:00.001-04:00

Alvin Plantinga - Science and Religion: Where the Real Conflict Lies

The Church Needs More Sexy Men

2011-05-11T19:52:00.000-04:00

The Church Needs More Sexy Men

If you have read this blog before, then you already know that I have a YouTube channel that I have in place as a ministry in service for the Kingdom of God. Always looking for material to post on my channel, I decided to post a clip of the Royal Wedding.

Like most Americans, I did not bask in the coverage of the event. I did, however, see Kate Middleton's brother - James Middleton reading a passage from Romans. I thought Middleton did a wonderful job at reading the passage. With so much irreverence in the world that is directed at God, scripture and the Bible, I found it refreshing to hear scripture read with such dignity. I wanted others to be able to enjoy this reading the same as I did when I first watched it.

I posted a video of James Middleton reading Romans 12:1, 9-18 on my Youtube channel on May 1, 2011.

Much to my surprise, the viewership of this video skyrocketed. It is the most successful video that I have ever posted. Within the first four days, this video had peaked with 800 views in one day. On May 5, 2011, this video hit an all time high of 8,300 views in a single day. Since then, this video has dropped to 1,600 views/day, dipping to less than 400 views/day and has since then bounced back to around 1,200 views/day. Since the starting date of my channel on December 29, 2009 - this video is already the 3rd most watched video of all of the videos since the channel has started.

Curious about the way this video was being discovered, I investigated discovery statistics. Much to my surprise, I found that this video was getting most of its hits from a gay website in Germany. My first reaction was to pull the video since it appears that the video isn't being watched in accordance with my original intentions. I then reasoned that I would leave the video on the channel. At the very least, this video is delivering scripture to an audience that is in much need of hearing it. Who knows if they understand what they are hearing since it is being aired on a German site?

As of yesterday from checking the discovery statistics, I have found that the German site has reduced its viewership but another site in Hungary has seemed to pick up viewership a great deal. This site seems to be aimed at women - a foreign version of "e!", if you will.

The viewership from the Hungarian site has been at such a rate that it has actually affected my channel demographic. Since my channel's beginning, my female demographic has hovered around 25%. Today, my female demographic viewership has increased 14% - it is now 39%.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my contention that the Church does not need flag football programs to entice the populace into churches and fill the pews. The church does not need rockin' praise bands to entice the populace into the churches to fill the pews. The church does not need sermons about sex to entice the populace into the churches to fill the pews. All the Church needs is sexy men.

That's right, you heard me right. James Middleton's video where he read Romans did not generate high viewership because of his rendition. Middleton's video received high viewership because he is a sexy man that both women and gays find appealing. Just today, for example, there was a comment left on this video that illustrates my point. It reads;

"Gawd that man is sexy!"

That's right, James Middleton is sexy and I suspect that the man could've been reading the back of cereal box and his video would've received the same amount of hits as it did when he read a passage from Romans.

Hopefully as women and apparently men as well watch Middleton read a beautiful passage from Romans, the words of God will penetrate their soul and open their eyes to the all sustaining glory of Christ as opposed to the failing of lust as it gives birth to sin and death when its allowed to permeate the heart.

I welcome you to watch the video below for the beauty of the message that God has delivered unto us. Today, James Middleton was used as an instrument to deliver the message but the everlasting message of God continues to ring not only today but tomorrow and for eternity!

May it all be for His glory,

Russell Moore - Wrestling with Assurance

2011-04-28T22:08:00.000-04:00

Rob Bell's Heresy Summed by Wretched

2011-04-22T06:36:00.000-04:00

Rob Bell Examined on Wretched

2011-04-11T09:55:00.001-04:00

Bob Jennings - Lessons Learned From Cancer

2011-04-10T17:33:00.001-04:00

Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox - Is God great?

2011-04-08T22:58:00.000-04:00

Paul Washer - A Young Man's Invitation to a Life of Sacrifice

2011-04-04T06:16:00.001-04:00

"In this video, Paul Washer encourages young men not to concern themselves with the theological trifles of our day, but to progress in Godliness and preach the Gospel to those who have never heard the name of Jesus."

"For more HeartCry Media, visit us online at":
heartcrymissionary.com/

Rob Bell Squirms - "You're Amending The Gospel So That It's Palatable!"

2011-03-23T18:40:00.000-04:00

"Rob Bell is one of the leading proponents of the Emerging Church. This view promotes the idea that the Bible needs to be revised and Christianity needs to be re-invented. In the following interview, he is challenged about his beliefs which he is not able to defend. He even squirms in his chair. It is impossible to say you believe in a biblical Christianity and deny the existence of hell or that hell is only a temporary place of judgment. This reveals that Bell who has been promoted by many Christian schools as someone to model their lives after reveals the level of apostasy that we are at, at this time."

*Video & quote from Pastor Jason Barlow*

2011 Resolved conference

2011-03-23T14:36:00.000-04:00

2011 Resolved Trailer from Resolved on Vimeo.

Join us for the 2011 Resolved conference, June 24-27 in Palm Springs, CA as we consider what it means to live a life resolved for Jesus Christ.

Visit resolved.org for more information.

He Gave the Sea His Decree

2011-03-23T14:07:00.002-04:00

Image Credit

He Gave the Sea His Decree

"When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:" - Proverbs 8:29

Whenever there is a great catastrophe that takes place, such as the one we have recently witnessed in Japan, there are inevitable questions that arise in relation to God's attributes. In their quest to make sense of the world around them, people ask why does God allow bad things to happen to good people? Why does God allow suffering? If God is all knowing and all powerful, then why doesn't He intervene? Surely God could have prevented the tsunami from hitting Japan, why didn't He do it?

God is holy and He is righteous so how do we reconcile the bad things that happen in the world when they appear to be at odds with God's attributes? Exploring this issue can be examined through the theological branch of Theodicy. Apologetically speaking, perhaps one of the strongest objections that we have towards God in regards to the problem with evil comes to us from, the the Greek Stoic Philosopher, Epicurus. He asks us in a paradoxical fashion;

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

Given that Epicurus is an atheist, he may not have had the purest motives in the world when he constructed his paradox of doubt. Atheists love and embrace this piece of work that they have inherited from their brother in the Atheist faith and often hit Christians with it as a means to put them on the defense. As Christians, however, we are supposed to have a reason for the hope that we have in Him and be prepared to give an answer. Some responses to the problem of evil in the past, unfortunately, have not always yielded the most appropriate response.

Hurricane Katrina, for example, has been attributed to abortion. In the aftermath of the 2005 Huricane, Pat Robertson said;

"We have killed over 40 million unborn babies in America. … Some of the attacks that are coming against us either by terrorists or now by natural disaster, could they be connected in some way?"

In 2007, Robertson continues to offer his apologetic pertaining to the problem of evil. Robertson and Jerry Falwel, for example, claimed that the attacks on 9/11 were a result of God's wrath on America per loose morals. This was not a popular apologetic and in spite of the criticisms that Robertson receives from his explanations, it wouldn't be his last response pertaining to the problem with evil.

Robertson's latest controversial apologetic came to us in response to the 2010 hurricane that devasted Haiti. Robertson said that the Haitians "made a pact with the devil" and explained;

"They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another,"

Robertson's controversial apologetic is offensive and does not bode well with the world. This, however, is not enough reason to abandon his apologetic. The God of the Bible is offensive to carnal man. The world hates God and is at enmity with Him. The Bible does speak of God's wrath and He has in the past issued it against the world/nations in accordance to His will. He did, after all, flood the world and kill all but eight people. God in His wrath, rained fire out of the sky and destroyed Sodam and Gomorrah. It is well within God's ability to not only control nature but to use it as a means to devastate men.

Should employing a Robertsonian (yes, I made that word up) apologetic be our template when others ask us about the problem with evil the next time the world witnesses a major catastrophe? I would hope not! Robertson's apologetic lacks the whole Biblical truth as it relates to the problem with evil. It is true that we live in a fallen world that is worthy of God's wrath. It is true that God would be justified in delivering any kind of devastation that He so chooses to deliver for He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy on and He will have compassion on whom He will have compassion on.

God's ways, however, are a mystery to us. His wisdom is foolishness to us. We don't always know why God does the things that He does. Just because God can wreak havoc on mankind at any time of His choosing per delivering His wrath on a fallen world, it doesn't necessarily mean that He is punishing specific people for their specific sins when we witness a national catastrophe. Please consider what Albert Mohler has to say;

"Nevertheless, Jesus warned his disciples about drawing the conclusion that a natural disaster can be traced to the sins of those who directly suffer its effects (Luke 13:1-5). God causes the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45). We must remember that when we read the headlines and see the images of a disaster wherever it may happen."

In reality, every nation deserves a devastating catastrophe so we shouldn't be so quick to condemn when it happens to others. Although, we should avoid condemning nations when they undergo a natural disaster, we should also avoid the error of pacification. Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of “When Bad Things Happen to Good People” - for example, offers a fallacious hermeneutic as a way of providing comfort;

"Whenever a disaster like this occurs, I go back to the Bible, to the First Book of Kings. Elijah, in despair over the situation in Israel, runs to the desert, back to Mt. Sinai to find the God of the Revelation to Moses.
"And lo, the Lord God passed by. There was a mighty wind, splitting mountains and shattering rocks, but the Lord was not in the wind. There was an earthquake but the Lord was not in the earthquake."
To me, that is the key: the Lord was not in the earthquake.
Natural disasters are acts of nature, not acts of God. God cares about the well-being of good people; Nature is blind, an equal-opportunity destroyer."

Rabbi Kushner should have read John Piper's "Japan: After Empathy and Aid, People Want Answers" that he posted recently in response to the events that are transpiring in Japan. In it, Piper tells us:

"No earthquakes in the Bible are attributed to Satan. Many are attributed to God.1 This is because God is Lord of heaven and earth:

He commands even winds and water, and they obey him (Luke 8:25);
He sends forth His command to the earth. . . . He gives snow like wool; He scatters hoarfrost like ashes. He hurls down his crystals of ice like crumbs; who can stand before His cold? . . . He makes his wind blow and the waters flow (Psalm 147:15-18);
He looks on the earth and it trembles . . . touches the mountains and they smoke! (Psalm 104:32);
[He] shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble (Job 9:6).
Earthquakes are ultimately from God. Nature does not have a will of its own. And God owes Satan no freedom. What havoc demons wreak, they wreak with God’s permission. And God has reasons for what he permits. His permissions are purposes. That's the point of Job 1-2 and Luke 22:31-32."

Unlike Kushner, Piper does not ascribe personification to nature and rightly acknowledges God as being sovereign over His creation. Kushner wrongly assumes that only an un-loving God would deliver natural disaster. It is quite to the contrary, it is in the natural disasters of the world that God reminds us to repent or we too will perish(Luke 13:1-5). It is in the natural disasters in the world that we are given opportunities to love our neighbor as ourself. In the empathy that we show and the aid that we deliver, we act as a light to the world and give glory to God through our ministry.

We should all continue to remember Japan as well as any neighbor that we have that is in need. Let us pray for God to deliver His gospel throughout the world so that lost men may be saved and not perish the same as those that have fallen prey to the tsunamis of the world. May God continue to be glorified in all things.

May it all be for His glory,

Bell Denies That He Is A Universalist

2011-03-20T21:36:00.001-04:00

Bell Denies That He Is A Universalist

Image Credit

After all that has been said and written about Bell's new book, “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived”, Bell denies being a Universalist in a recent CNN piece entitled - "Rob Bell Punches Back at the Claims of Heresy".

How can this be when he clearly meets the guidelines for being one? Although there are various definitions for universalism, the term is not so elusive that it gives way to ambiguity if it is framed in an appropriate context. In Bell's book, he has claimed that hell is not eternal and that eventually everyone goes to heaven. This clearly meets an understanding of universalism as it is understood by some in a traditional sense and with that being said, Bell can easily be objectively understood as being a universalist.

From the CNN piece, however, Bell only denies the charge of being a universalist and does not expend any effort to provide a defense. The article, however, references an event where Bell expounds upon the idea of being a universalist. In the typical Bellesque fashion, Bell does not tell us what he believes and leaves all of the room in the world for ambiguity. As a means to put us at rest, we are told; "he didn’t believe God reaches down and sweeps everyone to heaven."

That's fine and all but how about telling us what he specifically believes without asking us (the audience) a million questions the same as he does in his book. Why doesn't Bell just come out and give an appropriate apologetic where he gives us a traditional definition of "universalism" and explain to us how he is not one because he, instead, believes..., etc. Bell won't do this though because it is not his style. He claims that he's not into controversy because it does not honor God. Bell claims that he is interested in the truth, life and inspiration.

Before you get all misty eyed about Bell's interest in truth, life and inspiration, never forget that these things do not mean the same to you as they do to him. Bell has proclivities for altering traditional terms as well as the Gospel account as it is understood in the realm of orthodoxy. For most of us, Jesus is the truth. The "life" is the life He gives us when He saves us and gives us a new heart and a new nature. For Bell, the truth and life is found in God's plan to restore this world; "God is passionate about rescuing this world, restoring it renewing it."

For most of us, the Bible gives us revelation pertaining to the after-life but for Bell, the Bible provides ambiguity; “I think it’s very very important to point out … [that] we are speculating about after you die,” he said." This is perhaps why Bell is so surprised to think that anyone could say with a reasonable amount of assurance that Gandhi is in hell. In Bell's theology, it should be quite the opposite according the the teachings of Christ; "Bell would not be surprised if he saw Gandhi in heaven. “Jesus was very clear. Heaven is full of surprises. That’s central to Jesus teaching."

It's ashame that Bell has such a disdain for orthodoxy. The Gospel is a beautiful account of the truth that gives life and this is inspiration to all that are found in Christ and to all that Christ is found in. Bell is so fixated on restoring this world that he is blind to the beauty and the good news that Jesus restores all of those that are found in Him. It is those that are found in Him that will be found in a New Jerusalem after this world has burned up.

This is not intended to be a mean spirited post. We should pray for God to open Bell's eyes to His marvelous truths and that they inspire Bell the same as they inspire us that are found in Him. We should pray for Bell to be granted repentance and give up futile efforts to re-define a Gospel account that does not need changing because it is perfect as it is told.

May it all be for His glory,

Moore to the Point of Rob Bell

2011-03-15T23:15:00.002-04:00

Moore to the Point of Rob Bell

Image Credit

I have just finished reading Dr. Moore's "The Blood-Drained Gospel of Rob Bell" on his blog (Moore to the Point) tonight.

Rob Bell's disdain for the Gospel runs deeper than I was aware of originally.

In my "Bells Hell" post, I discussed the corrupted account of Christian history that Rob Bell presents so that he can have an avenue to deliver a non-canonical Gospel account. In my post, I discussed the way that Bell discounts the significance of the resurrection. Bell claims that resurrection stories, for example, were so common that no one basically would've been impressed with a reiteration thereof. New Testament era people, as Bell claims, had heard so many resurrection stories that the act of being resurrected would fail to differentiate Jesus from all of the other gods of antiquity that had done as much at earlier dates, etc.

Not being content with corrupting the Gospel account to the degree that he has already done thus far, Bell continues with his heretical campaign in his new book. As Dr. Moore reports, Bell now has moved on to attack the blood of the Lamb.

Bell claims that the blood of the Lamb (you know the blood that cleanses us of our sins?), is nothing more than a metaphor that the Bible uses as a literary tool so that the culture at the time would be able to understand sin, guilt and atonement. Bell goes on to say that most people today do not live in a society that offers blood sacrifices to gods and therefore, the meaning is lost on us.

As has been noted on this blog before, Bell is notorious for changing the meaning of terms and with this, we should not be surprised that Bell would try to de-emphasize the blood of the Lamb. Bell also has proclivities for changing the history account and therefore, it should not surprise us that Bell claims that the early Biblical account of blood is a rip off from pagan accounts.

To stand in correction, Dr. Moore rightly points out that the blood atonement of Christ is a prehistoric account and not a metaphor. Moore continues and reminds us that the blood is the life of the animal and was understood to be so in a reverent account.

Moore also goes on and continues to give additional significant accounts of the blood as how it is portrayed in the Bible and with this, it is worth reading his blog to get a more detailed description that he is better at providing than I am.

The main point that I want to emphasize here is how Bell continues to discredit and devalue everything that is orthodoxy. All of Christianity hinges on the resurrection and for Bell to make any attempts to devalue it as he's done in the past, is an attack upon the very faith itself. Similar to the resurrection, the blood is also intrinsically linked to the cornerstone of the faith. Without the blood atonement of Christ, we have no forgiveness of sins. Bell continues with his attack against Christianity through his attack on the blood. Bell wants the forgiveness of sins but he doesn't like the judgment that is intrinsically linked with it.

Perhaps, it is his disdain for all-perfect judgment, that gives Bell reason to attack the blood of the faith;

By removing the blood language, the language of sacrifice, we remove what it means to sing with the redeemed of all of the ages, “for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). If you remove the blood from the doorposts of Egypt, all that’s left is judgment. The same thing happens when you remove the blood from the gospel.

Jesus offends us with our own blood, reminding us that what runs through our veins will one day run cold. He tells us then that in order to live, we must be united to the life-blood of another, a blood spilled for rebels like us. Jesus’ blood speaks a better word than Abel’s. It tells us precisely what Bell would like us to ignore: God is just and judgment is sure. - Dr. Russell Moore

Let us not be ashamed of the Gospel. Let us embrace the amazing resurrection of Christ that the philosophers in Athens were amazed at hearing about because it was so unique to anything that they had ever heard of before. Let us embrace the blood of the Lamb that cleanses us of our sins and rescues us from the judgment and wrath of God.

The Gospel is such a beautiful account of God's loving attributes, it's ashamed that Rob Bell fails to see the all perfect love that wins - the all perfect love that redeems us by grace through faith in Christ Jesus!

May it all be for His glory,

How Do You Account For the Hope That Is In You?

2011-03-14T01:23:00.003-04:00

How Do You Account For the Hope That Is In You?

"but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," -1 Peter 3:15

In addition to having the good fortune of authoring a blog, I also have a YouTube channel listing various videos; sermons, videos that are apologetic in nature, videos that warn of false teaching as well as videos that address the account of creation. In response to videos, I often have an opportunity to deliver the Gospel to atheists that freely offer their criticisms of God, Jesus, the Bible, Christians, our account of creation, as well as our position as it holds to abortion. Over the course of time, I hear a whole assortment of questions and arguments that the "well intentioned" atheist keeps in his/her toolbox of rhetoric.

One of the questions I'll occasionally get, addresses the hope that I have in Christ. I'm asked a variant of the question that asks, how do I know that I am worshiping the true religion and not a false one? The question of this nature will typically have a post-modern spin on it that presupposes that there is not a way I can be assured of the hope that I have in me because; 1.) there's no way for me to know the truth, or 2.) religion is relevant, the truth of one religion is as valid as the truth in another religion. Arguments that claim that I can't know the truth will usually take a spin in the direction that claims my information cannot be validated the same as scientific data and therefore is null and void.

Another argument that I get pertaining to truth is that I can't trust my senses. Arguments that take on the spin of relevancy will insist that the teachings of Mohammad and Buddha are as relevant as the ones we received from Christ. Some of this heretical rhetoric will deviate from true historical figures and instead argue in mythical terms; saying that Jesus is a mythical figure that is no different from the Greek gods of Cronos and Zeus. The truth of Christ, in other words, is no more valid than that of the Greek gods of antiquity (that didn't exist).

At least with this view of mythical proportion, however, there's not a bias that criticizes the truth of antiquity. I actually encounter critics that imply Christianity lacks legitimacy, saying that it is a religion that comes from desert tribesmen that lived thousands of years ago. It's amazing that it does not occur to these critics that their argument is a logical fallacy. Being a tribesman, for example, has no bearing on a truth that is revealed. Occupation, in other words, has no bearing on the validity of a truth that has been "revealed" by God. Also, The amount of time that elapses has absolutely no bearing on the validity of truth. Truth does not have an expiration date the same as you will find on a carton of milk.

The host of arguments used to question the Christian about the hope that we have in Christ varies in flavor but not in spirit. At the heart of questions that have been discussed thus far is not one of true academic inquiry but one of judgment. Atheists are full of condemnation that they wish to bestow upon God and it is in their heart's content to do this through various avenues; one of which is through their inquiry that is performed in the fashion of a trial lawyer. If you do not believe me, review my encounters that I have had with them and see how they insist to put God on trial with their blind accusations made out of hate.

The truth found in scripture can save lost men. Somehow the truth of scripture, however, eludes the atheist. It is highly improbable that truth is going to be found in attempts to quote mine. As a result, the atheist remains ignorant and blind of the good news of the Gospel. In spite of my consistent reiteration of the work that Christ has done on the cross, they insist on putting God on trial for crimes of inhumanity. In their eyes, they see all of the people that God killed in the Old Testament and are completely oblivious to all of the ones saved in the Book of Acts. They fail to see that the wages of sin is death and that hell is a just consequence delivered by a holy and righteous God. They fail to see there's good news in the atonement work of Christ that He fulfilled on the cross so that we may live. Unfortunately, they also fail to see that the same work of Christ that saved a wretch like me can also save them.

It is my hope that in spite of blindness, that lost men may come to be saved by God's grace. The most prominent way of fulfilling the Great Commission is to deliver the Gospel. When delivering the Gospel, however, we are often asked about the hope that we have in us and in this, we should embrace 1 Peter 3:15 and be ready to give our account in any given time.

I have been recently asked how I know that I can trust my senses and that I'm not worshipping a false religion.

I gave the following response;

1.) I have Moses and the Prophets that announced the coming of my Savior. When my Savior did come, He fulfilled what was prophesied about Him. So, in other words, There was a revelation given in history. The likelihood of one person fulfilling all of the prophesies as accounted by numerous men over considerable periods of time is more than an incidental quark that some desert tribal men got lucky with when they "made it all up".

2.) Unlike all of the false religions in the world, my Savior has an empty grave and a resurrection that has been verified by numerous eye witnesses. This testimony is discounted by scoffers, however, they fail to recognize that the account that we have today would be held admissible in a court of law today. Check out my RC Sproul video - "Why believe Christianity". Sproul in this video is quite right in his assessment, Muhammad and Buddha are dead. Jesus, however, lives and has left behind an empty tomb.

3.) Jesus' enemies never denied His miracles; one of the things he did, so you would "believe". If anyone had a reason to discount miracles, it would be the Pharisees and Sadducees, in which, they never did deny his verified accounts of his many miracles.

4.) I have the Gospel, the power of God for salvation to anyone who will believe, first to the Jew and also to the Greek. Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word of Christ in which I have heard and believed. When I believed, God renewed my heart. He ripped out my heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh. He gave me a new nature - that only God can do. I have been changed! Praise God who saves lost men like me.

I by no account profess that this explanation is as comprehensive as it could be, etc. At the same time, however, this apologetic could be abbreviated or expanded upon in contingency of context. I also suspect that my explanation will mature as I grow in cognitive and spiritual maturity.

I would love to hear from you. Please by all means, give your account of the hope that you have in you if you had to present this to a skeptic with an agenda.

May it all be for His glory,

David Platt - What Happens to Those Who Never Hear the Gospel

2011-03-09T23:17:00.001-05:00

David Platt - What Happens to Those Who Never Hear the Gospel

Commentary on Challies' Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"

2011-03-09T22:23:00.011-05:00

Commentary on Challies' Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"

As promised, here is a response to Tim Challies' book review of Rob Bell's new controversial book; "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived".

Most of you know by now, if you are reading this post, Bell's book has been the center of attention since February 26th, when Justin Taylor published a blog post (based on Bell's promotional material) announcing Bell as a universalist. As a result of this post, the controversy about Bell has been discussed/debated/argued extensively via blogs and Twitter. Some do so in the name of perserving orthodoxy while some do so in the hope of perserving Bell's name. Still yet, there are others that do so in a desperate attempt to unravel Bell's discombobulated message and gain a fragment of coherent meaning that might be camouflaged in a mist of ambiguity. Irrespective of what has been said thus far, Bell has remained silent and has made no public attempt to defend his name, his theology or his book. Perhaps Challies' review of this controversial work will reveal a brilliant revelation from Bell.

If you haven't done so yet, for the sake of clarity and as a means to gain familiarity, I highly recommend for you to read Challies' review before reading this commentary.

First of all, Tim Challies and Aaron Armstrong are to be commended for writing a well thought out and coherent review of this yet to be released book. Thank you for clearing up some much sought after information that has been difficult to obtain outside of a review of this nature.

Challies' and Armstrong's review, for me, substantiated a lot of what I have already discussed in previous posts. Namely, Bell insists on asking a series of questions as a means to instruct. Unfortunately, however, instead of shedding light on the subject matter at hand, Bell seems to only bring more confusion. Challies and Armstrong bring out the point that Bell's questions do lead to an end and are more than academic inquiry. Through Bell's questions, we do see Bell latching onto the concept that God is love and He has good news for us. Bell's understanding of God and His good news, however, differ from orthodox teaching. Bell uses orthodox terms but he re-defines them as a way of reconciling unpleasant concepts that are not palpable to him. Bell, for example, never denies that there is a hell but cannot accept that a loving God would send someone there for eternity. Bell makes an argument that the Greek word "aion" that is used in the Bible to indicate that hell is for eternity also carries with it the meaning of "age", "period of time" or "intensity of experience".

With Bell's linguistic yoga that he performs with the Greek word "aion", he seems to neglect the fact that context should be used as a method of deriving correct usage/meaning. I love Challies' argument stating that we would not be so quick to jump at the alternative meaning, given what the word would yield if we used it in John 3:16;

"For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have life for a period of time."

I doubt Bell would embrace this interpretation either. Bell has a theology of social justice where we are not God's stewards but His partners. It wouldn't be very encouraging if we were to only enjoy this privilege for a "period of time". Together, instead, we are going to make the world a better place and in this better place, hell is “a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep without our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God’s world God’s way” (p. 95).

I'm not going to reiterate Challies' and Armstrong's entire post because they can summarize Bell's book in it's entirety much better than I. There are, however, two more things I would like to address before I end this post.

First, if you will please recall, in other posts I have published; I discussed Bell's proclivity to alter and re-write history on his terms. It appears that he has not lost his affinity to corrupt the historical account. In Bell's book, he continues to insist that history has been altered and differs from the version that we have today. Please consider Challies' account of this phenomenon;

Jesus’ story has been hijacked by a number of different stories that Jesus has no interest in telling. “The plot has been lost, and it’s time to reclaim it.” (Preface, vi)

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better…. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear. (ibid)

Irrespective of being exposed to Bell's irreverence that he has for history, I still have major issues with his criminal assault. It's almost like the man is a victim of delusions of grandeur in which I don't know if I should feel sorry for him or be mad at him for the act of evil he consistently practices. If you note from my Bell's Hell post, Bell has an agenda for altering history. Bell has to alter history as a way of negating the current gospel account so that he can substitute it with his own account. As previously mentioned numerous times in Bell's gospel, God is great and He wants all men saved; how great would He be, however, if He lost some to hell? God must, in the end, save all men in order for Him to illustrate His ultimate love and grace that are intrinsically linked to His attributes.

Finally, I'd like to take an opportunity to directly answer the questions that Challies' post on his blog that he doesn't necessarily address in a direct manner;

"The questions you probably want answers to as you read this review are these: Is it true that Rob Bell teaches that hell doesn’t exist? Is it true that Rob Bell believes no one goes to hell? You’ll just need to keep reading because, frankly, the answers aren’t that easy to come by."

1.) Is it true that Rob Bell teaches that hell doesn't exist?

No, it's not true. Unfortunately it is widely held that all universalists deny the existence of hell altogether. This is not true. Some universalists do not deny the existence of hell but deny that it lasts for eternity. Rob Bell can believe in hell and still be a universalist. If you read Challies' post, you will see that Bell does not deny hell but re-defines it, the same as he does with most orthodox terms; it's the only way he can pass off his heretical teaching so that it may have a look of legitimacy.

2.) Is it true that Rob Bell believes no one goes to hell?

No, it's not true the Rob Bell believes that no one goes to hell. As previously stated, Bell can accept that people go to hell and still be a universalist. According to Challies, however, Bell's hell is void of God's wrath and fire so it fails to meet the criteria listed in orthodox teaching.

I hope that this post may prove to be somewhat helpful to anyone that reads it. I may post more responses to Bell's work in regards to his new book, it all depends on where the spirit leads me. As much as it pleases me to see evangelicals step up to bat and defend doctrine, it also at the same time concerns me that all of the hoopla that has given Bell so much publicity will probably sell an untold volume of books for him. God is good though and in spite of Bell's insistence to alter history so that he may present a different gospel, I am seeing where others are taking this as an opportunity to post on such topics as hell and universalism. May these posts be used to glorify God and edify the Saints. God has an uncanny ability to make good things spring from evil events. This current event is no different and in no way negates God's sovereignty. Perhaps this issue will force the churches that have been avoiding the topic of hell like the plague to finally give credence to this biblical teaching that is as much as a part of God's word as the parts in the Bible that are not offensive to our carnality.

Grace and Peace,

What Are Bell's Early Reviews Saying?

2011-03-09T00:59:00.001-05:00

What Are Bell's Early Reviews Saying?

With all of the speculation as to what is in Rob Bell's controversial book, "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived", it will be interesting to see what the early book reviews have to say. As reported in a previous post, Tim Challies' review will be out by Wednesday or Thursday so this brief summary will be in reference to the reviews that have been posted on Scott Dixon's "The Tenth Leper" blog as well as what Greg Boyd reports in his recent post. I will probably post a separate post in response to Challies' soon to be released post in the next day or so.

Starting off with a brief summary of what can be surmised from Dixon's posts pertaining to Bell's book can best be viewed in today's post that Dixon has published. Dixon goes on about how hard it is to interpret what Bell is exactly trying to communicate/advocate. Although Boyd's post doesn't appear to be as neutral as Dixon's, he agrees with Dixon about Bell being an ineffective communicator but tries to put a positive spin on it;

"First, Rob is first and foremost a poet/artist/dramatist who has a fantastic gift for communicating in ways that inspire creativity and provoke thought. Rob is far more comfortable (and far better at) questioning established beliefs and creatively hinting at possible answers than he is at constructing a logically rigorous case defending a definitive conclusion."

So as it can be seen through these two views, if you are going to read Bell's book as a means to acquire a hard definite theological ideology that will shape your worldview, then you are going to be more than disappointed in Bell's book. If you are, on the other hand, looking for witty banter that offers a plethora of questions that focus and center on questioning conventional and orthodox teaching then Bell's book is what you've been looking for and will be the ticket.

Bell's book has stirred a lot of controversy. Some would argue that it isn't Bell's book that has stirred the controversy but instead Justin Taylor's blog piece about a book that hasn't been published yet. To be fair about it, Taylor didn't really comment on Bell's book but on the promotional literature and video that was put out as an endorsement of Bell's book. If the literature is accurate then Bell's book should be about putting hell on trial and examining what a loving God would do with the fate of every person that has ever lived. Boyd, however, says that Bell's book is about the beautiful character of God;

"Rob’s book really isn’t about the population or duration of heaven or hell. It’s mainly about the unfathomably beautiful character of God revealed in Jesus Christ and therefore about the unfathomably good nature of the Good News."

Before you get all too giddy about Boyd's statement that Bell's book is about the good news, recall my Bell's Hell post where I reiterate Bell's gospel proclamation. Bell's gospel IS NOT the traditional rendition delivered in orthodox teaching. Bell has a disdain for orthodoxy and it is seen in not only his rhetorical questions that his book is inundated with but also in his man-centered gospel. According to Bell, you are the good news as opposed to the biblical teaching that you earned death through your sin and Christ offers propitiation through His crucifixion for anyone who believes and has faith in Him. According to Bell, all people have to do in order to see the resurrection is to look to you. Bell's attempt to take our focus off of Christ as a means to put ourselves in the spotlight is blasphemous to say the least.

I suspect, however, that Boyd was not referring to Bell's definition of the Gospel as he has stated earlier but as to what Bell's "good news" is in this current book. You see, Bell likes to play with terms and re-define them. Dixon says that Bell never outright denounces orthodox terms but re-defines it. Dixon then goes on to talk about Bell's confusion that he has about salvation and how he shows this through yet another plethora of questions that offer more confusion than clarification. My response to this is shouldn't a minister offer clarity and not leave behind more confusion than one started off with in the first place? I know Bell gets all sorts of accolades for his brilliant teaching but where is the genius in a pedagogy that breeds discombobulation?

I'm going to wrap this up for now but before I leave; I will say that from the different posts I have read about this book and from the liberal mindset/post modern worldview that Bell's supporters advocate in defense of this book, that Bell would argue (even though he might not outright say it) that a loving God would not send anyone to hell forever. Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, president of the Union Theological Seminary, had this to say in defense of Bell;

"Jesus' message was that the love of God is stronger than anything we can do -- and the forgiveness of God is stronger -- so why would that God be torturing people in some made up hell?" she said.

Considering that Dr. Jones is a post Professor of Theology at Yale Divinity School, I am astonished at this argument that is void of any real understanding of the issue at hand. Dr. Tim Keller offers one of the best commentaries about hell than I have ever seen. This is only a portion of a larger article but in spite of that, it offers insightful considerations that you may want to consider if you are tempted or swayed to argue that sending people to hell is beyond God's nature;

"In Romans 1-2 Paul explains that God, in his wrath against those who reject him, 'gives them up' to the sinful passions of their hearts. Commentators (cf. Douglas Moo) point out that this cannot mean God impels people to sin, since in Ephesians 4:19 it is said that sinners give themselves up to their sinful desires. It means that the worst (and fairest) punishment God can give a person is to allow them their sinful hearts' deepest desire.

What is that? The desire of the sinful human heart is for independence. We want to choose and go our own way (Isaiah 53:6.) This is no idle 'wandering from the path.' As Jeremiah puts it, 'No one repents . . . each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle. (8:6)' (We want to get away from God-but, as we have seen, this is the very thing that is most destructive to us. Cain is warned not to sin because sin is slavery. (Genesis 4:7; John 8:34.) It destroys your ability to choose, love, enjoy. Sin also brings blindness-the more you reject the truth about God the more incapable you are of perceiving any truth about yourself or the world (Isaiah 29:9-10; Romans 1:21.)

What is hell, then? It is God actively giving us up to what we have freely chosen-to go our own way, be our own "the master of our fate, the captain of our soul," to get away from him and his control. It is God banishing us to regions we have desperately tried to get into all our lives. J.I.Packer writes: "Scripture sees hell as self-chosen . . . [H]ell appears as God's gesture of respect for human choice. All receive what they actually chose, either to be with God forever, worshipping him, or without God forever, worshipping themselves." (J.I.Packer, Concise Theology p.262-263.) If the thing you most want is to worship God in the beauty of his holiness, then that is what you will get (Ps 96:9-13.) If the thing you most want is to be your own master, then the holiness of God will become an agony, and the presence of God a terror you will flee forever (Rev 6:16; cf. Is 6:1-6.)"

May everything we do be in the honor and glory of God,

Bell Being Exposed Sooner than Anticipated

2011-03-08T21:11:00.001-05:00

Bell Being Exposed Sooner than Anticipated

The criticism, "You haven't even read it yet" that is frequently held against Rob Bell's critics will soon be over with sooner than originally anticipated. ABC News announced recently that Bell's publisher is releasing the book on March 15th as opposed to the original March 29th scheduled release date.

In addition to this, more and more people appear to have an advance copy of Bell's book and they are releasing reviews in advance of the books release date. As mentioned in my Bell's Hell post, Scott Dixon of The Tenth Leper blog is periodically releasing reviews of Bell's book. I read Dixon's blog today and in today's post, he informs us that Greg Boyd also has an advanced copy as well as having a blog post where he discusses the book after having read it. Last but not least, Tim Challies announced on Twitter today that he will be coming out with a book review of "Love Wins" either on Wednesday or Thursday (this week).

There is more to come on what these reviews actually have to say in another post.

Grace & Peace,

Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell?

2011-03-07T20:00:00.000-05:00

Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell?

Apologist, James White, addresses the charges of one Rob Bell that claims early Christians borrowed or ripped off accounts from Helenistic mystery religions like Mithra and Attis and attributed said accounts to Christ making Mithra and Attis an archetypal Christ.

This video is a wonderful supplement to the recent Bell's Hell post. I posted that article before I had an opportunity to watch this video. White reiterates and substantiates a lot of the information that is in the Bell's Hell post and at the same time, provides enough additional information to make this video a must watch.

Bell's Hell

2011-03-07T03:05:00.000-05:00

Bell's Hell

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to a theological concept that I had never heard of before; Universalism. I remember reading a link that he sent me written by someone that had embraced this concept and had posted a paper about it on Scribd.

I remember the paper was a rather lengthy explanation as well as including several biblical passages and rationale for his un-orthodox belief. For those that do not know, universalism is the belief that, in the end everyone gets saved or receives salvation. I am by no means an expert and at the time I read my friend's article, I was not even familiar with any variations of this belief. I do remember, however, the paper that I read on Scribd didn't say that persons wouldn't ever go to hell; only that they wouldn't stay there for eternity. The paper I read, made a correlation between the symbolic imagery of fire associated with hell in orthodox teaching with the fire that a smelter uses to extract impurities from metal. It appears, according to this belief from the paper that I read, that sinners have a set amount of sin in them and if said sin could be extracted then an individual would be sanctified. Through sanctification, the newly cleansed person would be worthy of attaining salvation and gain admittance into Heaven.

If you really want a more detailed and a more authoritative look into Universalism, I strongly recommend for you to start your search with a visit to the CARM site. There you will learn the basics about universalism as well as different variations pertaining to it as well. For the purpose of this article, my reference to universalism is in regards to Christian Universalism. In Christian Universalism, Jesus died for everyone's sins and in this act salvation is available to everyone. A just and loving god cannot or would not damn sinners to eternity because this act would be void of love. God, instead, offers salvation through Jesus irrespective of having faith in Jesus. For those that have faith, they avoid hell altogether. For those that do not have faith in Jesus, they go to hell for a period of time. It is in the afterlife that god eventually brings sinners to repentance, etc.

If you do not keep up with the current events that take place in Christendom, you may be unaware of the controversy that surrounds Rob Bell and his new book. Rob Bell is a Wheaton College graduate, the Harvard of Christian schools as CNN puts it, and pastors a non-denominational Christian Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan called Mars Hill . CNN describes Bell as "a pastor and author who has achieved rock star status in the Christian world".

Irrespective of attaining the status of a rockstar pastor or not, Bell has stirred up quite a controversy in the land of Christendom with the announcement of his new book that is called "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived". In this book, Bell puts hell on trial and examines the afterlife. The book description from Amazon is as follows;

"Fans flock to his Facebook page, his NOOMA videos have been viewed by millions, and his Sunday sermons are attended by 10,000 parishioners—with a downloadable podcast reaching 50,000 more. An electrifying, unconventional pastor whom Time magazine calls “a singular rock star in the church world,” Rob Bell is the most vibrant, central religious leader of the millennial generation. Now, in Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins."

Shortly after the announcement of Bell's book, Justin Taylor of the Gospel Coalition, responds with a blog piece, "Rob Bell: Universalist?" This blog post, needless to say, has sparked a dialogue and in some cases, a heated debate pertaining to Rob Bell. CNN reports that on the Saturday that Taylor's article was published, Bell reached the status of being the top ten in trending topics on Twitter; a status that is rare for theological debates to reach on Twitter, etc.

Some people argue that it isn't fair to judge a book before it has been released. To be fair to Justin Taylor, however, his response was mostly directed at a promotional video that Bell has put out for his book and not the book that hasn't been released yet. It is also presumptuous for us to believe that Taylor, a VP editorial at Crossway, does not have access to the book in its entirety and has read enough of the book that he is indeed qualified to make statements thereof.

In further defense of Bell, others argue that the promotional video is mostly void of making any authoritative statements in which Bell mostly asks questions for effect. Proponents of this viewpoint then commonly ask, is it wrong to ask questions? They purport that Bell is only asking the questions that many others are also asking in hope of finding answers.

It's not wrong to ask questions. In fact, we know from 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to make a defense and be quick to give a reason for the hope that lies within us. If we are to be in the position to offer answers then it stands to reason that we should ask questions if it is used to advance our knowledge of the hope that we have in Christ. Critics of Bell's use of questions in his presentation are quick to point out that it is rhetoric and its intended use is deployed as a method of instruction. I tend to fall, however, in the camp of the critic. I don't buy for one minute that Bell is simply asking rhetorical questions for the sake of stimulating thought. For those that want to insist that asking questions in of itself is innocent and has no real consequence or lacks the powers of insinuation then I challenge you to try this with your wife. The next time you see your wife, rhetorically ask your wife a series of questions that addresses the issue as to if you really love her and examine her reaction. Tell her that you ask yourself everyday you come home from work if you love her and that you ask yourself if you are happy and if you should stay committed to this relationship and see if she's just assuming that you are playing the academic devil's advocate or if you're trying to propagate another message altogether. Let me know how that turns out for you.

Is it possible that all of this hysteria or panic over Bell being a Universalist is premature given that we don't know what is in the book that is yet to be released? Some skeptics are saying that they suspect that there are going to be a lot of people that are going to owe Bell an apology once the book is released. This may be true but at the same time I'm at a loss as to why there are so many people that truly appear to be so shocked that Bell could be a Universalist. It's not as if an assessment on Bell is taking place in a vacuum. There are numerous reports of Bell and his theology. There are numerous reports that warn of Bell being a "dangerous false teacher."

In Rob Bells "Gospel" Presentation Critiqued, Bell not only gives an atrocious and libel account of the history of Christianity but gives a corrupt account as to what constitutes the Gospel. Bell, in this presentation of deconstructionism, espouses the same lies that is most often heard from atheists as opposed to a pastor from the pulpit. Bell claims that the early Christians borrowed or ripped off accounts from Helenistic mystery religions like Mithra and Attis and attributed said accounts to Christ making Mithra and Attis an archetypal Christ; accounts such as, being born of a virgin, being born on December 25th, the resurrection as well as dying to pay for the sins of his followers. Bell goes on to argue that the resurrection story is not unique. Bell claims that someone giving the account of the resurrection at the time the early Apostles were evangelizing would've been met with, "so what?" because they've heard all of this before, etc.

In contrast to Bell's account of history, renown historian and Christian Apologist, Edwin Yamauchi, explains in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for the Real Jesus" that Mithraism did not show up as a religion of practice until the middle to late second century. The timing, in other words, is off if the early Christians were to use the account of Mithra as a template for Christ. As far as Mithra's birth story is concerned, Mithra was born of a rock and not a virgin. Like Jesus, Mithra was born naked but unlike Jesus, Mithra was born fully grown and posses a cap upon birth.

As far as being born on December 25th to link Jesus with Mithra, we don't know the date that Jesus was born per the Bible not giving us the date. Celebrating December 25th is tied into the Roman Emperor Aurelian setting this date for a sun god celebration per the Winter Solstice. When Constantine came to power, Christians began celebrating Christmas on December 25th circa 336 A.D. Constantine prior to becoming a Christian was accustomed to celebrating on this date when he participated in sun god worship. He now set this date for Son God worship. I highly suspect that if Rob Bell put forth a serious study of the history that he presents his Christian congregation with then he too would have been aware of the historical account that contradicts his teaching. At the very least, he could have warned his congregation that the historical account he was about to present was refuted by academic scholars as opposed to presenting it as the authoritative truth.

The Christian faith as a whole rests on the resurrection and Rob Bell carelessly tries to negate its significance by downplaying its unique account in history. Unlike Christ, Mithra didn't sacrifice himself, he killed a bull. There is no historical account of Mithra's death. If Mithra didn't die, then it goes without saying that this mythical god could not even possibly have anything in resemblance of a resurrection story. According to Ronald Nash, the same goes for Attis. According to scholars, there is not a resurrection account in any of the Hellenistic mystery religions. Yet, at the same time, Rob Bell is trying to tell us that there is nothing unique about the resurrection. If the resurrection account was as common as Bell makes it out to be then it is fair to ask why Paul wasn't challenged with this when he preached to the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:16-21). Instead, Paul was said to be a

"proclaimer of strange deities,"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection."

Can you imagine why this could have been said of astute philosophers of Athens if resurrection accounts were as common as Rob Bell makes them out to be?

Rob Bell not only has a strange account of history but one of the Gospel as well. In "Rob Bell's Gospel Presentation Critiqued", as previously mentioned, Bell says the Gospel is the good news that God hasn't given up on the world. This in of itself is not the best description I have heard but it's not exactly heretical either. The Gospel is the good news; the word "Gospel" means good news. Bell is adding to the definition and although it seems innocent enough, I always have a red flag go up if something is being added to the all sufficient word of God. Bell, however, is a spin master and it quite frankly wouldn't be his style to say something as conventional as the word "Gospel" means "good news." No, for Bell, it has to have some extra bit of revelation. The Gospel is good news and if one wanted to take a loose interpretation of it, I suppose that it is fair enough to say that it is good news because God hasn't given up on the world. Wouldn't it, however, be more accurate to say that the Gospel is good news because as a sinner, you earned death (for the wages of sin is death) and instead of giving you what you deserved (hell), God gives grace and saves through faith in Christ Jesus that paid for your sin-debt when He was nailed to a tree? Perhaps Bell wouldn't say something like this because according to Bell, Jesus is not saving us from God's wrath, He is saving us from our sins, our mistakes, our pride, etc.

Perhaps Bell wouldn't present a reiteration of the Gospel in a similar fashion as mine because according to Bell, "you" are the good news. You "are the gospel". What? I"m the gospel?? What in the world is Bell talking about?

According to Bell, when others want proof of the resurrection, all that they should have to do is to look to us. They should look to us because we are the good news, we are the gospel and we are the resurrection. Bell saying this with pretty music in the background sounds like he is delivering love to his audience. Pretty music, however, does not save and Bell's gospel has us exalting ourselves because he would have others looking at our deeds as opposed to the work of Christ performed on the cross. Bell would have others looking to us instead of Christ.

With all of the background that has been presented in reference to Rob Bell and the controversy pertaining to his new book, please allow me to leave you with an important piece of information. Scott Dixon, also known as "SaltyDawg" on Twitter has a website called "The Tenth Leper". Somehow, Mr. Dixon has received an early copy of Rob Bell's book and in response to all of the controversy in regards to Bell's book, has decided to publish an early book review. It was my intention to address the content of this book review in this post. I had not, however, anticipated that this piece would be as long as it has turned out to be, etc. In light of additional information that still needs to be examined, I will end this post here with the hope of addressing the content of Mr. Dixon's review in an upcoming post.

For the meanwhile, please visit The Tenth Leper and read the book reviews that have been posted thus far and by all means please return to this blog for a follow up post.

In the love of our Heavenly Father,

God bless.

Fighting for the Faith - Rob Bell - Love Wins Critique

2011-03-03T21:19:00.000-05:00

Fighting for the Faith - Rob Bell - Love Wins Critique

In light of the Rob Bell controversy pertaining to his new book, "Love Wins, Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived" or more accurately, in response to Bell's promotional video for the book - here is a critique via Fighting for the Faith.

May it all be for His glory,

Rick Warren @ 2010 Desiring God Conference

2011-02-28T23:05:00.000-05:00

Rick Warren @ 2010 Desiring God Conference

This post is behind times. It is a day late and a dollar short.

This video on Lane Ch's YouTube channel contains the Rick Warren presentation that he gave at the 2010 Desiring God Conference. Due to various family needs that required attention, Warren could not make the conference in person. Even for those that do not care (or even know) about the controversy the ensued hereafter John Piper invited Rick Warren to the 2010 DGC, this video serves as an illustration as to the make up of Warren's theology.

Warren's presentation is played in it's entirety with frequent breaks via commentary from Chris Rosebrough from Pirate Christian Radio.

Grace & Peace,

Why Does the Bible Mention Unicorns?

2011-02-23T23:05:00.002-05:00

Tying into the phenomenon of change that takes place within the realm of language, this video illustrates how "unicorn" is used throughout the Bible and how today's word usage is a source of confusion, etc.

John Lennox - 2 Scratches vs 3.5 Billion Letters

2011-02-20T19:29:00.001-05:00

John Lennox - 2 Scratches vs 3.5 Billion Letters

World views drive our perception and unfortunately this holds to even the disciples that bow and pay homage to the god of "chance and necessity".

Below is a wonderful illustration that Dr. John Lennox provides to illustrate the hypocrisy that passes off as academia today.

May it all be for His glory,

What is the Bible About?

2011-02-14T21:41:00.001-05:00

What Is the Bible About?

My last piece was a response to a church window that I had seen with a slogan that simply read, "People Matter Most". My response included a discussion pertaining to the role of the church and how people fit into the economy of God. My assertion was that people do matter but from scripture, we can't conclude that people matter most. In the economy of God, it is having a heart after God that matters most, the value of people is derived from the importance that they have to Christ.

In this video, Tim Keller does a wonderful job explaining that everything in the Bible points to Jesus. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus is found in both Old and New Testament. This video does a nice job at pointing out this illustration.

People Matter Most

2011-02-12T16:34:00.002-05:00

People Matter Most

If you read my piece on language from a couple of weeks ago, then you were briefly introduced to some of the idiosyncrasies of language. Words have meaning but their meanings may change over time. When I was a kid, for example, "a man of discriminating taste" would carry along with it the connotation of someone that had mastered the art of differentiation. Today, however, racial overtones associated with "discrimination" may inject a connotation with the word that you may not want to relay - if you were simply trying to say, for example, that someone was familiarized with the finer things in life.

When I went to church back when I was a kid (circa 5 yrs old), I had not developed an elaborate theological portfolio yet but there was one thing that I did know; Church is all about God. Unlike language, theological concepts should not change irrespective of the Church's goal of meeting ever changing needs in the community. Jesus is the same today as He was yesterday. God doesn't change and His word doesn't change. God's word is not like shifting shadows that are here today and gone tomorrow. Given my presupposition (Church is about God) that I've had since I was a child, can you imagine to my surprise when I noticed a church window that read, "People Matter Most"?

To be honest, I actually took a double look when I saw the church window. I thought to myself, "People Matter Most?", I thought the church was about God? If the Church is about God then doesn't it stand to reason that we should instead say "God matters most"? For the purpose of presenting a visual for this piece, I took a picture of the "slogan" and continued to contemplate the purpose of the church.

Let's not, however, assume that the biblical acumen of a five year old child can be relied upon.

What does the Bible say about the church?

When Paul addressed the Corinthian Church in the 1 Corinthian epistle, he introduces an analogy where he compares the body of the church (body of congregants) to the body of Christ. Paul tells the Corinthian Church that they are all members of one body. Each body member (congregant) has specific jobs/roles in the kingdom of God the same as members of the body, i.e. ears, hands, elbows, etc. have specific jobs to perform in the body of Christ.

Paul never says that all jobs have equal worth but stresses that all job functions are important. All have not been appointed to being an apostle, prophet or teacher, nevertheless, having a lower tiered job function does not alienate anyone from being a member of the body just the same. The ear, for example, isn't any less a part of the body because it's not an eye; if the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be?

To further place the roles and purposes of the congregants and the church into context, Paul goes on to say that you can give away all of your possessions, feed the poor and sacrifice your body but all of it is meaningless if it is without love. Paul ends his letter by telling us that the resources or gifts of the Church will fade. Gifts of prophecy and knowledge will be done away with and tongues will cease, for example, but love never fails. Out of faith, hope and love, in the economy of God, the greatest of these is love.

The church, in other words, is the collection of believers acting as members of the body of Christ. God has appointed some for some jobs and others for other jobs. Notice how Paul, however, said that you can feed the poor but if you don't have love, it is meaningless. Paul's not saying that people do not matter but at the same time, he's also not saying that people matter most. In God's economy, the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul and mind but the second one is like it;

‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’

To keep matters in perspect, consider that James says that pure or undefiled religion is to take care of widows and orphans in their afflictions and that faith without deeds is dead. Jesus also tells us in the parable of the Good Samaritan, in the book of Luke, for us to do the same as the man that shows mercy toward his neighbor in need. As instructed from scripture, we care for people by and through taking care of widows and orphans in need, showing mercy towards our neighbor (in need) as well as loving our neighbor as we do our-self. Our faith, in other words, should act in accordance with our deeds. In our faith, we become imitators of Christ. People matter, not because of any intrinsic value that they have but because they matter to Christ. We love people because Christ loves people. It is His Gospel that saves! It is In the life that He gives us that we should die to ourselves;

"and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."
2 Corinthians 5:15

If we only exude love for others in accordance to others' intrinsic value, then surely we would would fall short of loving everyone. Surely, just as well, would we fall short of loving everyone if we were to love others in our own strength. Out of the love that Peter had for Christ, he promised to die for him prior to Jesus' capture. In that same love/zeal, however, he feared the consequences of knowing him and denied Him three times. When Christ perfects us in love, however, He removes fear and frees us from bondage. When Christ perfects us, we receive a new nature and we have a heart to be pleasing to Him. People do not matter most, having a heart after God matters most. God is spirit and He must be worshiped in spirit. What better can there be for the interest of man than to be in God? Is it not God that gives life? If you being as evil and wicked as you are know how to give good gifts, then how much more does our Heavenly Father know to give to us? Let us rejoice and be glad that people do not matter most. If people were to matter most then what is pleasing to them would matter most. And what is pleasing to them? A recent Barna poll inquiring about New Years Resolutions describes what is at the top of priorities that people have for themselves;

"When it comes to the types of resolutions people make, Americans not surprisingly focus on self-oriented changes. Among those planning to make resolutions, the top pledges for 2011 relate to weight, diet and health (30%); money, debt and finances (15%); personal improvement (13%); addiction (12%); job and career (5%); spiritual or church-related (5%); and educational (4%). Personal improvement responses included being a better person; giving more; having more personal or leisure time; organizing their life or home; and having a better life in general."

God is spirit and He must be worshiped in spirit. The priorities that we have in our carnal nature denies the Kingdom of God glory and raises up carnal sinful man in place of what God desires. I am so glad that people do not matter most. I am so glad, instead, that God in His glory has decided to saved a stubborn stiff neck people that would reject Him as the corner stone if it were in their sovereignty to do as much. Praise Him who died on a cross so that we may live in Him. Praise Him that gave us grace and mercy as opposed to what we earned for the wages of sin is death.

Before I conclude, please allow me to appeal to pastors of flocks. Please rest in Him. Rest in His word and do not be ashamed of it. Do not be ashamed of the word that gives life. Do not be ashamed of the author of our salvation. I watched an interview on Penn Jillette yesterday that was very disturbing. Penn Jillette is a part of Penn & Teller, the magicians/comedy team the performs all sorts of weird tricks.

Jillette is an atheist. Jillette is extremely vocal about his beliefs and his disapproval of God and the Bible. Jillette claims that it was reading the Bible that made him an atheist. In the interview that I watched, however, I noticed that he also said that he had parents that made him go to church. He had a youth pastor that was very hip and relevant. He dressed in cool clothes and "he would play Jim Morrison songs and the Beattles". When Jillette asked questions about the Bible, his youth minister could not answer his questions. It escalated to the point to where the youth minister called Jillette's mom and dad and politely asked them to stop sending Jillette to Sunday school. According to Jillette's account, he was converting the class to atheism, etc.

Although Jillette's atheism cannot be entirely blamed on his inept youth minister, it does say something about our modern churches. Appealing to the youth via tactics that are designed to entice and allure is not only void in scripture but serves as an insufficient testimony in the hope that we have in Him. Pastors, clergy, and ministers are not asked to be infallible theologians but at least provide some sort of guidance that has root in a credible apologetic. At least provide a witness for the hope that you have in Him. At least seek guidance in a weak area that you cannot deliver therein. Pastors, do your flock right by being a worthy shepherd.

In closing, the word of God instructs his flock to care for people the same that He cared for us. Resting in God's word is the most loving thing you could possibly do for another human being. By resting in God's word, you will care for the orphan, widow and neighbor that is in need. God is spirit and He must be worshiped in spirit. Take on the spirit of God and love your neighbor. Let us all be a testimony and give a reason for the hope that we have in Him. Relevancy does not save men. Let us be grounded in the word, the good news that brings with it salvation to all who believes. Let us praise God for loving us first as well as pray for those that are determined to earn death if they are not found in Him.

God bless you all. People do matter for we are the gift that the Son is going to give to the Father but it is Him whom is the Alpha and Omega - for whom all things were made by and for Him.

May it all be for His glory,

What Vessels Like Hitchens Show Us...

2011-02-07T22:07:00.001-05:00

I stumbled along this piece tonight as I was going through my old "sent" emails that were directed at professors at Georgetown College. I had written and shared this piece with one of my professors on January 5, 2010. The following is mostly intact the same as I had originally written it in Jan of 2010. I have implemented some minor changes as a way to slightly clean it up as well as making some changes for the sake of annotation.

What Vessels Like Hitchens Show Us...

Christopher Hitchens is staunchly opposed to God. I have heard him in
debates and believe me when I say that he truly hates God with contempt.

This is not, however, to say that the man is not intelligent. You had better be on your game if you go against him in a debate. He makes some very astute observations and provides unsettling and daunting insight in regards to the truth vs. the worldview battlefield that we are called to fight the same as it is mentioned in the article that I have listed below (1);

"More to the point, though, you soon discover that many of those attending
are not so sure about all the doctrines, either, just as you very swiftly
find out that a vast number of Catholics don't truly believe more than
about half of what their church instructs them to think."

I'm not trying to cherry pick this and imply that Catholics are the only ones that Hitchens correctly observes as to being vulnerable to criticism per weak apologetics. Prior to that statement, for example, he truthfully describes the way Calvinists cringe and hesitate to own up to being a Calvinist when asked in the sense that he (Hitchens) is going to hell.

Men like Hitchens, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins or any other name that would be right at home as being listed as a guest speaker on an Atheist Alliance International Convention event (2) are instrumental, however, in serving a purpose. I discovered the Hitchens' article through reading an article about how Christians need to man up instead of being embarrassed or afraid to defend what we believe (3). The Hitchens' article also addresses men that he debates like Doug Wilson. Hitchens states that he respects men that actually hold to doctrine and truly believe that biblical stories really happened and are not just metaphors. Hitchens respects men like Wilson, for example, more than he respects the ecumenicals that have equated church as to being a "community organizing" effort.

Without men or vessels like Hitchens, we may become complacent in our understanding of God and loose our zeal to fight for the truth and to carry on "the good fight" by going out into the world to deliver the gospel so that lost men may be saved. As Paul would ask, however ala Romans, should we go on sinning so that God may be glorified more?

Surely not!

In other words, the accusations from men like Hitchens, Maher and Dawkins force men of faith to man up and deliver the truth. Through a vigilant adherence to delivering the gospel and adhering to the Great Commission, God is given glory. Men like Hitchens, Maher and Dawkins are serving a purpose in the Kingdom of God that they may never be aware of accordingly. In spite of the purpose that men of this nature may serve, however, we should never forget that these men are lost and are in dire need of our prayers so that they may be saved. Although they hate God with all of their hearts, they are no different than we were before we were born again with a new nature; a nature that is not at enmity with God; a nature that is not a God hater; a nature that is a result from having a heart of flesh as opposed to a heart of stone. By ministering to men of this caliber (along with any other lost soul) per the Great Commission, we continue to give God glory by being obedient to His will.

As it stands now, the aforementioned men are vessels of wrath according to Romans and even in that God will receive glory when His justice is rightly distributed according to His divine will that is after His own council.

May everything continue to act in accordance to God's will to give Him glory and may we be pleasing to our Heavenly Father by having a heart for the lost and to minister unto them so that they may be saved.

May it all be for his glory!

W.

(1) What I've learned from debating religious people around the world.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 26, 2009, at 11:21 AM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2233586/pagenum/all

(2) Atheist Alliance convention featuring Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher coming soon July 6th, 2009 11:46 am ET

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m7d6-Atheist-Alliance-convention-featuring-Richard-Dawkins-and-Bill-Maher-coming-soon

(3) Hitchens to believers: Man up!

By Jake

http://wisertime.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/hitchens-to-believers-man-up/

Image Credit

The Gift of Language

2011-01-29T22:11:00.004-05:00

Disclaimer - This post is not a comprehensive examination - meaning that every anecdote and or verse pertaining to language will not be addressed per se. With that being said, I would love to gain additional insight so please feel free to post your ideas/comments!

The Gift of Language -

Being made in His image, God has performed a wonderful work in us. God has given us the gift of language that we can use as a tool for work in His Kingdom for His purposes. It is my hope to briefly examine this wonderful gift so that it may be used for edification. Ephesians 4:29, for example, tells us to not only abstain from unwholsome/abusive/corrupting talk but to use language for the purpose of building up one another so that it may "give grace to those who hear". The gift of language, in other words, is to be rejoiced in for God has seen fit to give it to us as a means of building up the saints. With this gift, however, comes a tremendous amount of responsibility. Proverbs 18:21, for example, tells us that there is life and death in the tongue and those that love it will reap what they sow. Let us therefore be responsible with the gift of language that can be used for both good and evil.

The Gift of Language Being Used for Good -

Adam used the gift of language as a tool and as a means to exercise dominion over the Earth. When God allowed him to name all of the animals, Adam was given the ability to create identity. It is in God's good pleasure to endow man with the gift of language to practice dominion and to assume the role of creator - in a fashion that mirrors but pales against the Almighty Creator of the Universe. The gift of language, therefore, makes man a "god". He's not a (little "g") god in the same fashion as the Mormon's aspire to be but a (little "g") god in the same sense that Jesus said that we are "gods" in John 10:34 when He said;

"Jesus answered them,"Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '?"

Jesus, of course, was not saying that we are deity but that we are gods in the sense that the word is used to define an administrator of antiquity - most notably a judge or a magistrate of an appointed office - the same as how it was used in the Psalm 82:6 verse that Jesus quotes. The point of this illustration is not to highlight that we are gods but that man is an administrator (i.e., little "g" god) because he can use language in the role of an administrator/judge as ordained by and through God.

The gift of language, most notably though, is also the primary means God has decided to use as a measure to reconcile man unto Him; for we are saved by grace through faith and faith comes by hearing the gospel which is the power of God to save anyone who will believe (Ephesians 2:8; Romans 10:17, Romans 1:16). Isn't it amazing how God used His word (language) in the beginning to create and continues to use it today to give life? When we follow through with the Great Commission we are using the gift of language to deliver the good news of the Gospel and in doing so, language continues to give life - only this time it is used to give life in Christ in eternity!

Language that Displeases God -

Like any gift, however, the gift of language can be abused as can be seen through the Tower of Babel. Man, in his pride, used this gift to rebel against God. Also let us not forget the warning from our dearly beloved brother, James;

(8)But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison.(9)With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;(10)from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.

As much as language can be used to make man in the image of God, it can also be used in ways that are displeasing to God. The same language that can deliver the beautiful message of the Gospel is the same instrument that can be used to curse God and or to curse one another. In the same fashion that our prayers should be earnest, our use of language should be as well.

The Power of Association -

Before language can be used for good or bad, it has to have some mechanisms in place so that we may derive meaning from it thenceforth. Really when one thinks about it, it is amazing that any meaning can be derived from written or spoken language. Afterall, spoken language is only a bunch of arbitrary sounds that have been assigned meaning. There's no reason in the world that the sound that we make when we say the word "shirt", for example, couldn't just as well apply to the concept that we have for a chair and vice versa. Sounds, in other words, have to have meaning assigned to them. Learning the meaning that is associated with sounds comes through experience. A child, for example, is exposed to language over a period of time and through imitation, he/she begins to utilize language. A child, for example, discovers that when he or she imitates mommy and daddy and speaks by assembling specific groups of sounds together, he/she gets his/her wants, needs and desires fulfilled. With wish/need fulfillment contingencies met, language then acts as a reinforcer and we naturally grow up using the gift of language all throughout our lives. Written language mechanics act in a very similar way as verbilization. With written language, however, meaning is assigned through an arbitrary symbol as opposed to an arbitrary sound.

In addition to all of the attributes that have been discussed thus far pertaining to language, I have personally witnessed another unique ability of language. Language association, for example, does not need to be very complex at all in order to convey meaning. I witnessed this ability at work last week through a game that my superior and his students were playing in class. He would say one or two words that were intended to be a description of a student in the room; someone he was thinking of when he said the word. He would then ask the class to name the student that was best represented by the word or two that he had just vocalized. After he would say the word or two, faces would light up and students would speak up and say a name that was best represented by the word just spoken. It was amazing to see how everyone, without collaboration, would unanimously say the same name in response to hearing a one or two word description. It is amazing, in other words, at how language contains within it the ability of association. How can an association contain so much meaning that an individual can be identified through the use of a word or two? How is that possible?

Jesus did something similar to the very act I witnessed last week. He didn't ask a group to identify a person according to a one or two word description. He did, however, associate a term to a pair of brothers; presumably based on their demeanor. James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John took notice of a Samaritan village that wouldn't welcome Jesus. After doing so, they asked Him if He wanted them to rain fire from Heaven and destroy them? With this in mind, it is no wonder that Jesus associated a term like "Sons of Thunder" with James and John.

Jesus did not, however, reserve appointed associations for the "Sons of Thunder". He calls Himself "Son of Man" 88 times in the New Testament. Originally, the name "I AM" is associated with Yahweh. This easily accounts for the anger that unbelieving Jews had towards Him when He uses this name in association with Himself in John 8:58. The very name, itself almost appears to be a paradox. Consider the depths of God and it almost seems miraculous that God can accurately associate Himself with a term as short and concise as "I AM".

Associations Reflect Nature -

The amazing gift of language containing within it the ability to describe complex meaning with only a few words is a testimony to the genius of God. The arbitrary nature of language requires context as a means to frame meaning. Scripture, for example, is often taken out of context as a means to manipulate the language of God so that it speaks the will of man as opposed to the will of God. This is why it is imperative to read scripture in context as a measure of deriving the true meaning of scripture. Similar to applying an appropriate hermeneutic in reading scripture, deriving complex meaning from a few select words requires a context or a certain amount of knowledge about the object being described. When my superior gave a one or two word description identifying a student in the room, for example, the other students obviously had knowledge about one another in order to associate a word with one of their peers. The students had more than a cognitive knowledge of their peers' existance however. In order to interpret that a word or two was referring to a specific peer, they had to have a knowledge of their peers' nature. From what little we know about James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John, I'm guessing that the term "Sons of Thunder" made perfect sense to those that either knew the men or knew about their nature. Jesus having a perfect knowledge of where He came from and where He was going as well as knowing His mission that He came to fulfill, "Son of Man" can denote that Jesus is a man (a human being, i.e. a description of His nature) at the same time He is "I AM" (God, a description of His nature). Those aware of scripture at the time most likely were well aware that "Son of Man" not only denoted the prophesy of the Messiah given in Daniel 7:13-14 as well as Him being human (His nature) as it mirrors God calling Ezekiel the "son of man" 93 times in the Book of Ezekiel.

The Nature of Language -

The same as word associations refer to the nature of the object being referred to, language also has a nature unique to itself. All the while language mechanics may have certain rules to adhere to in order for it to maintain orthodox usage, the very meaning of the words that language utilizes will change over time. When I was a boy, for example, "discriminate" had a positive connatation. A man that had a discriminating taste was one that could differentiate from among common artifacts to the finer things in life. To "discriminate" implied a level of sophistication or ownership of an administrative skillset that set one apart from the blue collar skillsets of the populace. Today, however, "discriminate" is laced with racist overtones. The word no longer carries with it a level of disctinction that it once had in another era. The ever changing nature of word association should be kept in mind when exercising appropriate hermaneutics. Do not assume a word that we are using today is necessarily carrying with it the same meaning that it exuded 2,000 years ago. The era that a word was used in - is a part of the context of that word.

The Ambiguity of Language -

Context is a component of language that could lend itself to volumes of books and even then it may not be covered to the extent that it warrents or deserves. Context is intrinsically linked to the meaning of words, sentences, paragraghs, chapters and books, etc. It is imperitive to find the meaning of terms when concepts are being discussed.

Anthony Hopkins was recently on Charley Rose. Through the course of the interview, the topic of faith was brought up. Mr. Hopkins talked about growing up as an atheist and then later he became agnostic and then later, he came to believe. If there wasn't any more clarification, one could easily assume Mr. Hopkins was a believer in Christ and was saved. Mr. Hopkins had the good sense, however, to further define his terms as a means to prevent any sort of confussion about the God that he worships. Mr. Hopkins said that;

"I don't believe in the person, but I beleive in Spinoza's God, an intelligent and supreme, awe inspiring design at the back of the cosmos starting from the big bang."

In other words, Anthony Hopkins does not believe in the God of the Bible. Mr. Hopkins believes in a god that is somewhat synominous with nature. Mr. Hopkins has faith, it just happens to be a faith that is lacking Christ. Faith alone will not save Mr. Hopkins. James says that even the demons believe, and shudder. In order for one to receive eternal life, he has to have faith but it has to be a God saving faith that is grounded in Christ Jesus. Spinoza's god is a fiction of Spinoza's imagination. Spinoza's god will not save but damn.

In summary, the gift of Language is a wonderful gift from God. Langauge can be used for God's glory or it can be used as a instrument of sin. Language can be God honoring when it is used to edify the saints as well as being an instrument to deliver the gospel. Language is displeasing to God when it is used to carry out man's will instead of God's will. Language, at the same time, is displeasing to God when it is used to curse men.

The nature of language is complex. Although language mechanics adhere to rules, context has to be used dilligently as a means of deriving meaning from language per its ambiguous nature. Knowledge about an object's nature must be known in order for language to have accurate meaning. Knowledge of how language is used given the era it is used in per se must also be known inorder to derive accurate meaning given that words change over time.

Finally, terms require elaboration as a means to ensure appropriate meaning is being communicated within a given context. Words can contain meanings that vary from their orthodox roots. Faith, for example, does not always apply to faith in Jesus. Demons can have faith and a god is not necessarily the God of the Bible. Discernment must always be adhered to and practiced with diligence.

It is my hope that this post can be used to edify the Saints. May we never forget that the very language God has given us to save men through the Gospel can also be used to tear those same men down. Let's remain in the spirit of God approved men and act as Ambassadors in Christ for His glory. Amen.

May it all be for His glory,

The Offense of the Gospel in Alabama

2011-01-20T17:43:00.000-05:00

The Offense of the Gospel in Alabama

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley made controversial remarks that some people are not happy about. On Martin Luther King Day (1/17/11), the governor made a speech at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist church shortly after he was sworn into office. Two days later, Bentley’s director of communications released a statement on his behalf - “The governor had intended no offense by his remarks. He is the governor of all the people...”

The contents of Bentley’s speech have Bill Nigut, the Southeast regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, stating that Bentley should not only apologize but also release a full retraction of his declaration. According to Nigut, there is no excuse for making the kind of mistake that Bentley is charged with making - “The governor does not have to be a seasoned politician to understand the impact of remarks like that,” Nigut, said. “Joey Kennedy of The Birmingham News also adds “He is not a civilian anymore; he is not a private person anymore. He is the governor of Alabama every day, 24-hours a day.”

With such a reaction from Governor Bentley’s speech, what could he have possibly said that was so offensive? Governor Bentley under an official capacity said that Alabamians should ''love and care for each other." He said that he was color blind but if they did not have the same daddy as he did, then they were not his brothers and sisters; ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."

To differentiate one American from another American on the sole basis of being a believer in Jesus Christ is an offense. In the economy of the world, all beliefs are equal and to declare one as to being superior to the other is to illustrate a lack in civility, it is to show one’s ignorance and presumption, it is to rob the god of diversity his homage that he demands as a blood sacrifice from a world that is all too eager to feed him. In the economy of the world, it is unimaginable to suggest that one may find favor with God while another is lost and blind without Jesus Christ. Nigut expresses his offense; “These are remarks of a man who truly believes what he said, apparently. This seems to be quite clear that Christians are part of an exclusive relationship he has with his brothers and sisters and the rest of us are not.” Nigut would have, however, preferred Governor Bentley to say something more along the lines of; “I realize I was wrong that we are all brothers and sister, and not single out only the ones who believe in Jesus Christ,”

Is it reasonable to believe that Nigut has a point? Even after taking First Amendment rights into consideration, is it possible that Bentley is in the wrong? According to Gene Policinski, the executive director of The First Amendment Center, Bentley is a public official and like all public officials, his office “represents all faiths.” Policinski adds, “Religion is a part of many peoples’ lives, but there is an implication when a particular faith receives favorable or disfavorable treatment. It is a very difficult line to draw, but it is one any politician has to be aware of.”

Polincinski is right, all politicians need to be aware of favoring one group of people over another group of people. Kennedy is also right; Governor Bentley is the governor of Alabama 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Nigut is also right, it appears that Governor Bentley believes the statements he made during his speech. Bentley’s critics have concerns but are they valid concerns? Did Bentley say he was going to favor one group over another? Did Bentley say that he wasn’t governor 24 hours a day so that he can act differently when he’s not in the office? Does Bentley’s beliefs force him to treat Christians and non-Christians with different measures of justice? Does Bentley’s beliefs force him to discriminate and disenfranchise one group of people over another group of people?

In none of Bentley’s remarks that have been reported as being offensive in the piece that is referenced in this post did Bentley say that he was going to do anything illegal. In none of Bentley’s remarks did he say that he was going to disenfranchise one group of people over another or that he was going to use his office to promote one faith over another. It is a secularized belief that promotes using a political office to represent a faith. It is Policinski that said that Bentley’s office “represents all faiths” when in reality it is unique doctrine that differentiates one faith from another and therefore represents said faith. I wouldn’t call Frankfort, for example, and ask my governor, senator or congressman about infant baptism. It is not the government’s job to represent any faith but to preserve men’s rights so that they can practice their faith on their own accord. Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world as well as, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”. It was never commanded of us to adopt the world into God’s family. This world is going to burn up and it is men’s lost souls that we fight for, not anything of this world. Christ doesn’t want our governments; He wants to save the lost so that God may be glorified.

It is only through a lack of understanding of Christian teaching that one could even presume that Bentley’s remarks were any sort of indication that he intended to favor one group of people over another. It is true that God differentiates Christians from non-Christians and one day He will separate the sheep from the goats but at the same time, however, it is God’s children (Christians) that are given the Great Commission – to share the Gospel of Christ so that salvation may be obtained and lost men may be saved. If we follow the greatest commandments given to us, we are instructed to love our neighbor as ourselves and later we find out that it is the one that shows mercy to another that is the one that is acting like a neighbor. With any real sincerity when examining Christian teaching and doctrine, one reasonably has to conclude that if one were to follow Christian beliefs while he/she governs a state that others from other faiths would not be in any kind of danger. We are never commanded to harm others even when we find it necessary to rebuke false teachings and teachers. Render to Caesar that is Caesar’s is the rule of law that Governor Bentley needs to take heed of; meaning that he needs to act appropriately within his office of governor while at the same time giving all allegiance, faith and confidence to God. By remaining true to Christian teaching, there is no conflict of interest – Bentley can be loyal to the gubernatorial office as well as to the convictions of His beliefs. We should pray for Governor Bentley to make an example of his office by exuding a blameless execution of his faith unto God in praise of Jesus Christ all the while he governs the state of Alabama with authority without any guilt of wrong doing. Meanwhile, perhaps we can make our own contribution to the testimony of the Christian faith by living exemplary lives. Contrary to the beliefs of Bentley's critics, we should not live one life while we are in office and live another life when we are off the clock as if our faith was an accessory in our lives that we can put on and take off the same as an expensive watch. It is the false converts that pretend to be sheep on Sunday all the while they are living like goats throughout the rest of the week. Bear the fruit of the vine by remaining to be in Him that gives life.

In the love of our Heavenly Father,
W.

Paul Washer - Churches Using Carnal Means

2011-01-05T21:56:00.001-05:00

"There is a crisis. Christian youth are rapidly leaving evangelical churches for the world. This well-recognized disaster has been the topic of significant discussion in recent years for both church leaders and modern news media. DIVIDED follows young Christian filmmaker Philip LeClerc on a revealing journey as he seeks answers to what has led his generation away from the church.

Traveling across the country conducting research and interviewing church kids, youth ministry experts, evangelists, statisticians, social commentators, and pastors, Philip discovers the shockingly sinister roots of modern, age-segregated church programs, and equally shocking evidence that the pattern in the Bible for training future generations is at odds with modern church practices."

Churches Using Carnal Means to Attract Carnal People

from

The Divided Film DVD

A Call For Discernment by Justin Peters

2011-01-01T17:56:00.002-05:00

Tim Keller - The Gospel and Idolatry - Acts 19:23-41

2011-01-01T17:34:00.002-05:00

Quote - Rooted in Spiritual Ignorance

2010-12-28T13:51:00.001-05:00

Quote - Rooted in Spiritual Ignorance

"Being rooted in spiritual ignorance, man's total depravity manifests itself in idolatry. Paul's catalog of depravity continues, "No one seeks God" (Rom. 3:11). In his quest for meaning, truth, and salvation, fallen mankind will turn everywhere except to God. This is why such manifestly foolish ideas as the theory of evolution gain so much traction our world, propping up fallen man's desperate quest to find a replacement for God. As Calvin famously quipped, "Man's nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols.". This being the case, the one thing depraved man will not do is seek after God."

"What's So Great About The Doctrines of Grace?"

Richard D. Phillips

You may want to check to see if this book is still available for free on Kindle.

May it all be for His Glory,

What is the Gospel

2010-12-26T20:06:00.001-05:00

<p>&amp;amp;lt;hr class="more"&amp;amp;gt;</p>

Ligonier Ministries 2011 National Conference

2010-12-23T22:03:00.004-05:00

Ligonier Ministries 2011 National Conference from Ligonier on Vimeo.

From Lingonier Ministries

"To celebrate God's blessings upon both Desiring God & Ligonier Ministries, our 2011 Ligonier Ministries' National Conference will focus on the theme "Light and Heat: A Passion for the Holiness of God." We will gather once more with friends from all around the world on March 24--26, 2011, to study the deep truths of God's Word, confident that He will bless our time together and demonstrate the unity we have in Christ by His Holy Spirit.

Several essential doctrines of the Christian faith are under attack in our day, even from within the church, and it is important that we be well grounded in these truths so that we may have a deep affection for our triune God. John Piper will join R.C. Sproul and Ligonier teaching fellows Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey, Steven Lawson, and R.C. Sproul Jr. as we look at several important tenets of the faith, such as divine sovereignty, biblical worship, evangelism and missions, apologetics, and justification. John Piper and R.C. Sproul will also host special sessions on the history of the work of both Ligonier and Desiring God, and we will endeavor to share some of what we have learned in our ministries as pastors and theologians. "

Quote - There's nobody in that Grave!

2010-12-19T14:57:00.002-05:00

Quote - There's nobody in that Grave!

'There's a recent article in the New York Times which says, "God is dead, we need to be dancing on His grave." He doesn't know that there's nobody in that grave.' - Dr. Ravi Zacharias

(From College Q&A session on February 16, 2005).

David Platt - Angel kills 185,000 men

2010-12-17T17:47:00.000-05:00

David Platt - Incomprehensible Great God

2010-12-17T04:58:00.000-05:00

John Piper's Return Date

2010-12-14T03:09:00.001-05:00

John Piper's Return Date: "John Piper's Return Date from the Desiring God blog."

"John Piper's Return Date from the Desiring God blog."

According to the Desiring God blog, John Piper will be back from his leave in early January. Mr. Piper is expected to be in the pulpit by the 8th & 9th. It will be a pleasure to see Mr. Piper return from his leave and I hope for him God's love, peace and well being.

May it all be for His glory,

The Gospel Coalition 2011 Conference - Tim Keller and Don Carson

2010-12-13T02:59:00.000-05:00

Many pastors and Bible teachers hunger to handle the Old Testament with more confidence—in the same way that New Testament writers handle it, in a way that understands how and why the New Testament writers treat the Old Testament as they do, and so arrive at Jesus and the Gospel. We might have begun by working through a number of New Testament passages where the Old is quoted, but we decided to start at the other end.

This way we may hope to model how a selection of Old Testament texts might be taught or preached—all in the hope of better learning how to teach and preach the whole counsel of God, how to become workers who do not need to be ashamed as we handle the Word of truth.

Voddie Baucham, Russell Moore, Ligon Duncan, Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll is just some of the many speakers that will be at the conference.

For more information, please see;

http://thegospelcoalition.org/conferences/2011/#overview

The Christian Christmas Celebration Dilema

2010-12-09T21:05:00.004-05:00

Image by Patrick Mahoney as it was displayed on

Mark Driscoll's piece in the Washington Post

The Christian Christmas Celebration Dilemma

Celebrating Christmas is wrought with concerns for the discerning Christian. On the surface, Christmas is the King of holidays. What better holiday can you have than one that celebrates the birth of our Savior? Jesus gave us the perfect gift of eternal life and taught us to love one another. So to express our love that we have for Christ as well as what we have for one another, it stands in perfect reason that we would also carry out the act of gift giving as a way to emulate Christ. So with that being said, where is all of the concern or better yet, why should we be concerned at all?

If you ever conduct a brief research on holidays in general, you'll find that most, if not all, of them have pagan roots. Easter, for example, has references to pagan fertility festivals, hence the egg symbolism, etc. Over the centuries, Christians have adapted/altered pagan rituals/holidays that were commonly celebrated in their culture. As time goes by, symbols and meanings associated with a particular holiday are lost and forgotten. Most people, for example, probably do not know that the holly we hang in our homes during the Christmas season originated from a superstitious belief; it protects from pagans and witches. Inspite of questionable/discerning symbolism, Christmas nevertheless has been adopted on a wide scale by believers and non-believers alike. Through long term observance, the Christmas Holiday has been blended and sewed into the tapestry of a collective and cultural conscience that defines the mores that we use as the infrastructure for our social/civil contracts. Now that we have a coveted event that carries righteous connotations, one runs the risk of being ostracized if they dare speak against a problematic cultural practice that is not commanded by God through scripture for us to observe/practice. One can only imagine at the flared tempers of people in church if you dared suggested that we should stop observing the holiday. Childhood memories as well as personal convictions and loyalties would not dare stand for it. It can, for example, be argued that since the original symbolism has been lost, that we have in essence transformed the holiday. If I'm not aware of the superstious powers of holly, for example, then I can't be accused of practicing witchcraft by merely hanging it in my home. My intentions were innocent. Hanging the festivial brush in my home, being in a different spirit than the one of it's origination, places the act in a different context alltogether. Paul tells us in Romans that one of us observes one day over another (14:5) and as long as each is living for the Lord that we are not to judge one another (14:8) because who are we to judge another's servant (14:3)? The whole point of Romans 14 is to instruct us to follow our conscience and to not judge our weaker brother and present a stumbling block. With Romans 14 in mind, it is neither right nor wrong to observe or to not observe Christmas. Each person needs to follow his/her own conscience and to not judge one another for the personal decision they have decided to follow. This in of itself, however, does not free the Christian from the dilimmas that plague the Christmas Holiday. There is a tendency, for example, to trivialize the concerns associated with Christmas i.e, lying about Santa Claus, promotion of materialization, hypocritically helping the needy when we ignore them for the rest of the year, presenting a watered down Gospel so that it is more palatable and practicing in a holiday with roots in Romanism and paganism. Some Christians have never considered any of these issues and therefore they are not concerns at all.

As Christians, we shouldn't ignore or trivialize the things that are truly problematic. By now, if you have read this far, I'm hoping that you are taking each of the aforementioned concerns into consideration. Mark Dricoll has a piece in the Washington Post that discusses the different options that a Christian has at his/her disposal when addressing the Christian dillema pertaining to Christmas. Driscoll says that we can either reject it, receive it or redeem it. Rejecting it obviously means that you have decided to not observe the holiday. Receive it means that you continue to practice the holiday the same as you have always done, etc. Redeem it means that you take everything pertaining to the holiday and place it in a proper context. Driscoll's piece is concerned with what parents should tell their children about Santa. A lot of people consider a little lie about Santa to be innocent. A little lie and what to do with one, however, is never addressed in the Bible. A lie is a lie and it is secular pragmatism that teaches the nobility of telling "little lies". Driscoll's concern is that if we lie to children about Santa Claus then it destroys our credibility when we tell our children about Jesus. In a child's mind, they may doubt our trustworthiness pertaing to anything we say about Jesus since we lied to them about Santa. Driscoll articulates and elaborates the matter between parents and children better than I do. I recommend his article for further reading in reference to this subject. In it, you'll find a brief history about Santa and possible explanations about how some of the myths pertaining to him may have made it into the mythology of Christmas. Driscoll recommends for parents to tell their children the truth about Santa. He says for parents to explain that Santa was a real person and that now people for fun dress up like him; although I doubt Kris Kringle ever dressed up in a red fuzzy suit.

In the same spirit as Driscoll's "redeem it" mantra that he has prescribed, I also believe that we should redeem the holiday. I suspect that if a campaign is set out to persuade others to abandon the holiday, it would present a stumbling block as well as stir dissension. The best possible way to redeem the holiday is to submitt ourselves to Christ and remain in Him at all times. With this, we won't have to worry about hypocritically caring for the needy once a year (twice if you count Thanksgiving) because we'll be caring for everyone all year long. Although we may not keep our wallets maxed out with gift giving all year long with items purchased in a store, we can continue to give gifts by giving the gift of ourselves as we help and love others for the rest of the year. We should pray for the world to give Christ their affection all year long the same as they do in their words during the festival season. May our lives remain to be a festival season in giving Christ praise!

Blessed be to our beloved Father that gave us Christ out of the great love He has for us.

Forever we are indebted.

Grace & Peace to you this season and all to come,
W.

David Platt - Radical Risk, Radical Reward Highlights

2010-12-09T04:38:00.001-05:00

Quote - The girl nobody wanted...

2010-12-08T16:01:00.004-05:00

Quote from

Timothy Keller's "Counterfeit Gods"

"God had come to the girl (Leah) that nobody wanted, the unloved, and made her the ancestral mother of Jesus. Salvation came into the world, not through beautiful Rachel, but through the unwanted one, the unloved one."

Using Our Inside Voice in Proclaiming Synthetic Life Creation

2010-06-06T17:27:00.004-04:00

Other Title: Rosie the Riveter U.S. National Archives' Local Identifier: NWDNS-179-WP-1563 From: Series: War Production Board, compiled 1942-1943 (Record Group 179) Created by: Office for Emergency Management. War Production Board. (01/1942 - 11/03/1945) Coverage Dates ca. 1942 - ca. 1943

Synthesizing Life to Mimic the Creator

Recent headlines like “Scientists Create First 'Synthetic' Cells”, “U.S. scientists create the first artificial life” and “A step toward artificial life; man-made DNA powers cell” all report of what J. Craig Venter is presenting as a “land mark achievement”. Venter, a genome pioneer, has synthesized a goat germ genome, 1.1 million “letters” of DNA, and has transplanted it into a “close cousin” living cell of another species. The transplanted genome is said to “booted up” the cell to produce proteins that are only found in the copied germ. This is similar to what was accomplished a few years ago when Venter transplanted the genetic code (genome) of a goat germ (bacteria) and turned it into a cattle germ (another kind of bacteria). The significant difference of what is happening today is that Venter has assembled or synthesized a genome from left over DNA laboratory fragments as opposed to simply copying a genome to transplant into another living cell, etc. In light of this, it appears, we are getting one step closer to creating life. In regards to Venter, The Daily Mail reports, for example, “the path is open for him to alter the 'recipe' to create any sort of organism he chooses.” Oxford University ethicist, Professor Julian Savulescu states “'He is not merely copying life artificially or modifying it by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of God: Creating artificial life that could never have existed.'

Benefits from Synthesizing Life

Potential legitimate purposes that could possibly stem from synthesizing cells ranges from an ability to produce clean bio-fuels; benefit healthcare via producing medicines and vaccines as well as benefiting the environment, for example, by creating bacteria that can consume carbon dioxide or toxic waste. Ethicists, on the other hand, foresee potential downfalls or a Pandora’s Box, if you will, that can be derived from synthesizing life. As a precaution per unforeseen dangers that may result from synthesizing life, President Obama has directed for the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to study the matter at hand. At the same time as this, others note potential havoc that may be waiting to happen if genetically engineered germs accidentally find their way out of labs and into the world, not to mention potential havoc genetically engineered germs may pose if they or this technology falls into the wrong hands and is used as a weapon.

“Creating Life” is Ambiguous

“Creating life” is an ambiguous phrase to say the least. The ability, for example, to create life from literally “nothing”, in the same manner as God, is far from man’s “creating life” abilities. Irrespective of front page headlines espousing scientific breakthroughs or ethicists proclaiming from the roof tops that we are approaching the roles of God, the ability to create life is not really news at all; it was given in the garden. Man is made in the likeness and image of God and in so doing, he was given dominion over “every living thing that moves on the earth” along with the command to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). God is sovereign and if we are making strides in bio-engineering it is only happening through God’s will. As Paul would say a ‘la 1 Corinthians 4:7, what are we bragging about? We only have what we have received. That is not, however, to say that we have been given permission to be careless with this technology, etc. It is to say, however, that in no way does Venter’s accomplishment suggest that we have unlocked the secret to creation and have elevated ourselves to god-like status in that we can create whatever we want at will. Not all scientists, for example, have the opinion that Venter’s accomplishment is the “land mark achievement” that some have made it out to be. From the Seattle Times, we read;

“Some scientists said that aside from assembling a large piece of DNA, Venter had not broken new ground.” To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this," said David Baltimore, a geneticist at the California Institute of Technology. He described the result as "a technical tour de force," a matter of scale rather than a scientific breakthrough. "He has not created life, only mimicked it," Baltimore said.”

Baltimore is not alone in his assessment of the magnitude or lack thereof pertaining to Venter’s work. Scientists also say that Venter’s work is more of a technical accomplishment than anything else. To put things into perspective, it is pointed out; “the new cell can be viewed as an organism with a synthetic genome, not as a synthetic organism.” With this in given light, it appears that the media itself may be guilty of playing on the all too ever ready sentiments of the secular post modern evolutionary worldview mindset that is “wanting” or awaiting for the day when we can claim a role that is one step closer to that of God – please refer back to the headlines as noted earlier as a sample of how the media is doing this, etc. Venter himself, however, has admitted we haven’t gotten to the point of being able to assume the roles of God;

'We have often been asked if this will be a step too far,' he said. 'I always reply that - so far at least - we are only reconstructing a diminished version of what is out there in nature.' - Venter

So as it is, we are taking what is already available in nature and assembling building blocks according to the prescribed guidelines that are intrinsically interwoven into the fabric of nature. In other words, we are using material that God has made and are rearranging it according to the rules that God has put in place to make a different variety of a “kind”. It is important to emphasize that we are making different varieties of a kind and NOT new kinds the same as evolution teaches. All Venter is doing, for example, is converting one kind of bacteria into another kind of bacteria. Coming forth from their own kind is completely Biblical and does not violate the Biblical account in Genesis where we are told that animals came forth from their own kinds. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches that through that magical element of “time” that a “kind” can be converted via evolution and formed into another or different “kind”. If Venter, for example, had mimicked evolution instead of what we really observe in nature; instead of seeing one kind of germ being changed over into a different kind of germ, we would see a germ transformed and changed, for example, into a complex amino acid. In other words, we would see one kind (a germ) changed over into a different kind (a complex amino acid); but this is not what he did and already I have seen a comment on another blog saying how Venter’s work was going to “debunk” the Creationist’s “heresy.

The Start of New Trends

I found it odd to see such a churchy word like “heresy” used in the context of biology. Given that evolution is a religion, however, it completely stands to reason as to why or how a traditional theological term can and will be used in the context of biology. Don’t be surprised if this trend starts to catch on and traditional theological terms start to become as much of a staple in the realm of biology as they already are in theology and apologetics. If this does happen, however, remember you heard it here first.

Another trend that may be on the horizon is patenting new life forms. This may sound crazy but before you dismiss it, please consider that Venter has already applied for patents pertaining to his work. This in of itself isn’t really all that unusual considering that he has, through his company Synthetic Genomics, $40 million dollars invested in research per se. Venter, however, has recently acquired a contract with Exxon to make biofuel from algae. The bacterium that Venter’s team has worked with, however, is not suitable for biofuel production and the team will be moving on to “more suitable organisms”. In the comment section below the article that mentions this deal, a gentleman makes an observation and concludes that since Venter “removed” genomes and has made it different from the original species that it could be classified as a new species. Also given that the organism that Venter created also has the ability to self-replicate, it may reasonably meet guidelines and be considered to be a “new life form”. If (and this is a big “if) the powers at be deem it appropriate to classify Venter’s production as a “new” species and considering that said organisms that Venter produces are manufactured per his patented work then Venter may very well be able to patent the “new species” he creates. This is all very speculative and by no means am I a patent lawyer so there very well could be instrumental aspects pertaining to this that I’m not aware of that could make the whole proposal null and void. If it becomes possible to make a “new species”, if you will, then I don’t know why organisms can’t be classified as a commodity the same as any other “recipe” that is created and associated with a brand and marketed accordingly. Given the context of Venter and his contract with Exxon, the organisms created for the production of biofuels for Exxon could possibly carry an associated trademark and differentiate it from other organisms that a competitor, for example, may use for their biofuels in the future.

Reasons to Create

As it stands today, only time will reveal what God will ordain and will allow to take place with Venter’s work/production of “synthetic” life. It is interesting to note of motives involved and how they play out accordingly. Before the creation, however contrary to popular belief, God was completely satisfied within Himself. God is in no need of anything and did not create the universe, the heavens, earth and man because He was lonely and needed a companion. The Triune God is eternal, He is love, and He is I Am. If it is fair or accurate as to give a reason as to why God created life, we can say per scripture that He did so that He may be our God and that we may be His people and that He does according to what pleases Him according to His will after His own council and with this, He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that who ever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life (Leviticus 26:12; Ephesians 1:5, 1:11; John 3:16). To sum everything in a brief but concise statement; God created life out of love.

As mentioned earlier, man was given the ability to create life in the Garden. It is only recently with the advent of technological advancement along with scientific understanding that man has been able to branch out and create life via the prowess of his intellect and technological savvy. Unfortunately, however, man’s intentions with creating synthetic life aren’t as righteous and holy as God’s reasons. Although there are potential benefits with creating synthetic life that can be found in and through the creation of new biofuels, medicines as well as possible solutions to cleaning up the environment, not to mention the healthy profit that may be acquired through return on investment (ROI); there are also reasons that are more self-serving based in pride and arrogance. Futuristic benefits are only briefly mentioned in all of the pieces I read while researching Venter’s work. The real emphasis, however, is placed on the implications of what has actually happened through the creation of synthetic life. With Venter’s accomplishment of producing an organism with a synthetic genome; we see desires of wanting to debunk creationism, hope that Venter’s work will promote evolutionary “beliefs”, hopes of assuming a larger role in the Universe – most notably acquiring the ability to take upon the role of God and assume a larger role as a “creator”. Venter’s work inspires some of us perhaps to the point to where we may want to proclaim;

'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' – Isaiah 14:14

If we continue to pursue with the creation of synthetic life and do so in a manner that does not glorify God but to do as such so that we are to be glorified then we are in essence denying God and have become like our father the devil by and through the desires we have to exult ourselves and rob Him of His glory;

"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." – John 8:44

Conclusion

The truth is that God is the one and true creator. If we create anything it is because its ability has been given to us along with the materials to do so. We are using material that God has made and are rearranging it according to the rules that God has put in place since the beginning according to His sovereignty. Stripping a cell of its DNA and substituting it with a makeshift strand you made from various fragments you had in a lab is far from creating life in the same fashion as God – the true creator of life. The stories pertaining to Venter’s work are quick to shout of the accomplishment, benefits and implications that we can derive from Venter’s work but isn’t so quick to point out and highlight the scientists that are out there telling us that we may want to use our inside voice because Venter has only mimicked life and hasn’t really created a synthetic organism but an organism with a synthetic genome. There is a huge difference between what has actually happened and the hope of what might happen. We should continue to put our faith, trust and hope in the Lord God almighty and cease with trading the truth for a lie and use all of our efforts, for whatever they may be, to glorify God.

May it all be for His glory,

WCD

Your Worldview Dictates Your Evidential Interpretation

2010-05-26T01:13:00.057-04:00

What does the following say?

"Godisnowhere"

The atheist comes along and says; "It clearly says 'God is nowhere'."

The Christian comes along and says; "It clearly says 'God is now here'."

Worldviews

The previous demonstration is to illustrate the influence of a worldview. Dr. Jason Lisle in his book, "Ultimate Proof of Creation - Resolving the Origins Debate", defines a worldview as "a network of our most basic beliefs about reality in light of which all observations are interpreted." Dr. Lisle points out that most people believe that in order to have validity, knowledge has to be acquired through evidence that is obtained through unbiased observation. He goes on, however, to point out that this "belief" is in of itself a worldview called "empiricism". We all have beliefs and it's our individual experiences that we collect in life that helps us form the worldview that we hold today. Worldviews, however, are responsible for the reason why both a Creationist and Evolutionist can both look at the same piece of evidence and come to vastly different conclusions. Our worldview is like a pair of glasses, it "filters" the way we view our surroundings and observations accordingly. Dr. Lisle points out that it is common for people to deny that they are interpreting evidence "in light of prior belief - a faith commitment of some kind" but also points out that in order for these same people to "observe" the evidence in an unbiased fashion that they first have to hold to the presupposition or prior belief that our senses are reliable.

We All Have Worldviews

In spite to how distasteful it may be to some to know we all have a worldview, never forget that we can't be divorced from our worldview. If someone, for example, is asking for you to suspend or give up your worldview, remember that they themselves are also holding on to a worldview of their own. A common worldview that I personally have witnessed is the belief that a truth must be believed in order to be "truth". A very common objection that people have concerning hell, for example, is that it doesn't exist because they don't believe in it as if the orient would no longer exist if I didn't believe in it's existence. For all I know, it doesn't exist. I've never been there and all of those old Kung-Fu movies I watched when I was a kid could have been staged the same as those fake Moon landing films. I am, however, puzzled as to how Chinese restaurants came about - for right now I'm chalking it up to a conspiracy theory.

Rescuing Devices

The method I just used as a means to deny the existence of the orient per my worldview is called a "rescuing device". Dr. Lisle roughly defines a rescuing device as a conjecture designed to protect a worldview from what appears to be contrary evidence. The reason that rescuing devices work is because someone can always use the unknown as a means to refute our arguments. If you, for example, try to assure me that there is not an organized conspiracy to convince the world that the orient exists when it really doesn't, the burden of proof falls on you to produce evidence to show that an organized effort doesn't exist. It is extremely difficult to "prove" that something doesn't exist the same as it is difficult to prove that the Spaghetti Monster doesn't live on the outskirts of our detectable universe.

Keep In Mind

Always keep in mind, however, that everyone has a worldview and that we can't be divorced from our worldview. Keep this in mind when you run into skeptics, debaters and atheists that want you to abandon scripture when you proclaim the glory of God to them when you minister the gospel or when you defend the faith with men that trade the truth for a lie when you offer up your apologia for the hope you have in Christ. While they may think that they are truly the only open minded one in your exchange, they too have a worldview that influences their interpretation of the evidence and they too are coming to the table with presuppositions for the arguments that they present. Scripture is not invalidated just because someone doesn't "believe" in the inerrancy of the Bible. When someone does, for example, want you to abandon scripture - remember in essence what they are doing is asking you to abandon your faith so that you can accept theirs. The Evolutionist or zealot for science, for example, has faith; it's just not the right kind of faith; it's faith in the "force" of nature or faith in the scientific method and or faith in scientific discoveries. The zealot of science is engaged in a religion also, instead of priests however, he looks to the scientist for guidance; instead of looking to the Bible for truth, he looks to the latest scientific discovery headlines in the news, etc.

Below is a YouTube play list for the "Ultimate Proof of Creation". The videos are broken down into six - 10 minute video segments.

Keep up the good fight!

Keep up the good fight and always have a reason for the hope you have in Christ Jesus (1 Peter 3:15). Stay grounded in the truth and keep the sword of the word, the sword of truth in your hand at all times.

Praise the Lord God Almighty always!

Grace & Peace,
WCD

Free Audio files from Crossway on YouTube

2010-05-19T18:35:00.002-04:00

Made available from Crossway via YouTube, free audio Bible files are made readily available for you and can be accessed from mobile devices.

You can access the audio files here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNKhOR_DNhU

I've included the first chapter from the Book of John below but Proverbs is available as well.

-WCD

ESV Audio Bible, Gospel of John, Chapter 1

2010-05-19T18:26:00.001-04:00

A Picutre of Hades

2010-05-16T21:14:00.003-04:00

Hades -

Not consistent with any themes developing here per se, I decided to post this diagram of Hades to serve as a reference for anyone that may find it useful.

Grace & Peace,
WCD

Consider Your Calling

2010-05-14T18:15:00.005-04:00

Consider Your Calling -

John Piper sermon on April 25, 2010
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
Consider Your Calling
desiringGod.org

"The call raises the dead."

"It's the kind of call that creates what it commands."

The call raised Lazarus from the dead.

"Because of His great love, He made you alive when you were dead."

Do Militant Pro-Lifer's in the Trenches Need to Back Off?

2010-05-02T00:01:00.012-04:00

Unidentified photographer
Soldiers in a trench, Gallipoli, Turkey, 1915
Reference Number: 1/2-103903-F
Photographic Archive, Alexander Turnbull Library

Do Militant Pro-Lifer's in the Trenches Need to Back Off?

Dan Kassis has an interesting piece on his blog that he has posted this week. In his piece titled, "Rethinking the militant pro-life approach", he goes on to describe the harsh and or graphic abortion images that pro-life advocates use as a method and means to dissuade women from getting abortions. He argues that if the militant pro-lifers would read Jesus' approach that he used with the Samaritan woman at the well as well as the woman caught in the very act of adultery, that these advocates would change their approach. Mr. Kassis' objection from my understanding is that such public declarations are perhaps hypocritical of advocates to go to such extremes by displaying such graphic images and at the same time not be willing to adopt babies themselves. If pro-lifer's are so adamant about the cause, it only stands to reason that they should be adopting the babies that others don't want and due to this are aborted accordingly. In addition to this, the harsh graphical imagery is inconsiderate and a cruel thing to expose to women that have underwent the tragedy of a miscarriage.

I appreciate the thought that Mr. Kassis has put into this issue. He explains the issue is near and dear to him per personal experiences - I would encourage you to read his account in his own words for further elaboration. I also believe that Mr. Kassis raises important points and issues that loving Christians should take into consideration when addressed with what to do with the abortion issue/ministries, etc.

I have seen bits and pieces of the images and videos that Mr. Kassis is referring to and my gut reaction is at first to cringe and question as to if children of light should be broadcasting such images of death, etc. Wanting to avoid the temptation to be a reactionary, I give a benefit of doubt to advocates that engage in the type of activities that is mentioned in Mr. Kassis' commentary. Perhaps a jolt or shock of reality is the thing that is needed as a way to frame context and to place the deadly consequences that is about to take place in a proper light; everything that a woman needs to consider and be aware of before she executes an abortion. I’m assuming that this is the line of thinking or rationale that people use when they broadcast the horrific images of abortion. In my mind’s eye, I’m sure they think they are doing one of the most loving things that they can do; expose the harsh reality of what is happening when a baby is murdered as a means to prevent more from happening. The world contains a dubious nature that labels murder as a “procedure” and assures women that they are terminating a lump of cells that we call a “fetus” as opposed to telling them that they are terminating life. It’s the same tactic that was used in war time when soldiers learned to de-humanize life by referring to the enemy as “gooks” or “Charlie” because there’s no reason to have guilt for terminating the enemy, but a man may hesitate and be burdened if he, however, thinks of it as killing men; men with fathers, mothers, children, etc.

So while I agree that as Christians, we are to exude and demonstrate the love of Christ as is mentioned in the above piece, sometimes lines become blurred as imperfect men try to serve their Father to the best of their ability. We should always be on our knees in humility and seek guidance from the Holy Spirit and do everything out of love; the love of Christ. We shouldn’t do anything that hinders another by exuding an heir of arrogance and judgment but at the same time, we should by no means ignore or belittle the seriousness of abortion. Abortion is murder and my heart goes out to a woman that has underwent an abortion and later face conviction for her actions. We love and comfort women with such convictions but not at the expense of lessening the seriousness of abortion so as not to give harmful inaccurate impressions to other women that are considering an abortion of their own.

With everything that has been said thus far, how does everything that we have discussed look like when actually being applied? First, as mentioned in the Kassis piece, we are to refer to scripture as to how we should act and to learn from the infinite lessons that it has to teach us as we trust in Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit to guide us and bear witness. Second, we should stay on our knees in prayer and humility and ask God for guidance because as James would say, we have not because we ask not (James 4:2-3). Both suggestions may appear to be obvious but sometimes its the obvious things that escape us and we always fall into error when we deviate from the basics.

Another purpose behind my suggestions is that every situation is unique and different and I fear we may fall into error if we try to lay blanket statements that dictate actions; such as, we should always show graphic abortion images as a way to deter women OR we should never show graphic images to women as a way to deter abortion. Although I don’t think graphic images of abortion posted in a pubic forum is appropriate because everyone “does not need to see it”, there may possibly be occasions when they serve a purpose that is truly done out of the love of Christ. I have seen videos of street preachers preaching with a megaphone outside of abortion clinics and these men tell the women that are in the building that they are being lied to and that they have pictures that can show them what really takes place during an abortion. Is this extreme? You bet it is. Do women, however, that are considering an abortion have a right to know what is really taking place during an abortion? You better believe they do. There was a segment on Wretched T.V. last week that showed a counselor telling a woman that there aren't legs and arms, etc.; that it's just tissue, etc. From the way the segment was laid out, this worker was clearly lying to the woman. Assuming the scenario just described is the truth, then graphic images displaying the harsh realities of what happens and takes place during an abortion is more than appropriate to illustrate the gravity of what is about to really take place if a woman decides to proceed with an abortion. If men make such claims about what takes place during an abortion and cannot back their claims up with evidence, then they are made out to be fools and the cause becomes a mockery. It is true that information pertaining to abortion can be relayed without pictures but pictures really show in a way that numbers cannot that we are really talking about babies and not statistics and cell tissue, etc.

May it all be for His glory,
WCD

A Work in Progress

2010-05-01T22:09:00.015-04:00

Palmer, Alfred T.,, photographer -from Library of Congress, women working for Douglas Aircraft; taken from Flckr Commons on 5-1-10

How does the saying go? A writer writes?

I have for some time have had the idea and desire to do a blog of my own. The process of starting one has been unnecessarily complicated. I kept telling myself that I'll start one as soon as I get a pithy as well as appropriate name for one; and don't forget to make sure that it has a gmail address that is the same as the url - all for simplicity's sake, etc. I also, however, realize that there needs to be somewhat of a common theme so that it will have coherency and doesn't violate the reader's expectation (assuming I'll ever have viewership and or a base). The purpose of the blog is easy; to glorify God. This blog along with additional projects is my ministry and it is my hope that it is used to edify brethren and sisters in the faith as well as provide the gospel to the lost so that lost men may be saved and that God may be glorified.

Irrespective of having this blog up right now, I'm still unclear as to the specific direction that it needs to go in. I have thought about simply posting relevant stories, commentary, news, etc. that pertain to the Christian life; at the risk of sounding like that I am completely devoid of originality, an evangelistic Drudge Report, if you will. Doesn't the internet, however, have enough blogs or sites that are nothing more than a reiteration as to what is already out there? I have a YouTube channel up right now, for example, and it is nothing more than videos that can be seen from a number of other locations. Isn't the significance or value of a blog lie in it's ability to post original content? It is my intention to post original content for my YouTube channel but that is a work in progress and is still in the planning stage as of now. This blog is a little past the planning stage in the sense that it is up and running but continues to be a work in progress. I pray for God to give me direction pertaining to this blog and that it will naturally evolve and take off in a direction of it's own in spite of the incompetence of it's administrator.

If you have ideas concerning this blog, please feel free to share them with me at; faithredeemed@gmail.com.

I still like the idea of an Evangelistic "Drudge Report" but at the same time I realize my limitations and don't want to start more than I'll be able to maintain. Perhaps if it is in God's will I will be able to find some partners that would be happy to assist me with such an undertaking.

Please come back often to see the direction that God has decided to take this blog in, etc. If it is in His will to sustain it, He will bless it with growth and if it isn't in His will, no amount of effort on my part will be able to bring viewership to fruition.

Please allow me to post a disclaimer before I end this post. As I have stated earlier, it is my intention to glorify God with this and I by no means wish to imply that viewership is indicative to success, the same as membership numbers do not indicate success for a church. A mega-church, for example, with thousands of members does not mean that it is has solid teaching and is properly exalting God. The same applies to a blog, high viewership by no means indicates that a blog is providing solid teaching and is properly exalting God.

It will be interesting to see what God has in store for us.

May it all be for His glory,
WCD

Pray for Paul Washer's 3 w/k Missionary Journey starting Apr. 28th

2010-04-28T23:53:00.008-04:00

From Paul Washer's Twitter today;

"Leave for Spain today; the 5th - Romania. 3 weeks of preaching, 25 sermons, counseling. Please pray. I am as weak as the need is great."

"The most difficult part is leaving my family for 3 weeks. I miss are devotional times most of all. The boys are learning and God is working."

"We are in John 10. Last night we finished a bio of Calvin. Our children can learn more than what the world has programed us to believe."

Please keep Brother Washer's missionary journey in your prayers; that God might grant him success in spreading God's word and that the gospel may be received so that lost men may be saved and that God may be glorified. Pray for Brother Washer's family while he's away. Most of all, let's pray for God's will to be done.

May it all be for His glory,
W.

How to disarm an Angry Person

2010-04-23T21:59:00.003-04:00

Here's a segment I edited from the 4/15/2010, Hour 2 Wretched Radio Podcast.

Should I Tell My Child He Was Conceived in Rape? My Response (Dr. Moore)

2010-04-23T21:24:00.005-04:00

From Dr. Russell Moore's blog - "Moore to the Point";

Below is a “Questions and Ethics” query I (Dr. Moore) posed a while back. Some of you weighed in on the question. Below is the question again, with my response.

Dear Dr. Moore,

My wife has been hurt horribly by a secret no one knows but her parents and me.

Years ago, when she was shortly out of high school, she was brutally raped by a man she had known since childhood. For various reasons, she didn’t report it at the time (I know that was a mistake, and she does too). The man later raped again and, ultimately, committed suicide. After her rapist’s death, it started to be known in our small hometown that he had done this before, many times, including the molestation of minor children. That’s in the past, but we’ve got a real ethical dilemma in our present and in our future.

This rape resulted in a pregnancy. During this time, she and I started dating and we were both convinced (and still are) that abortion is wrong, so she carried her baby to term. We married, and have raised this child together. He is nine years-old. He’s gentle, loving, and a delight to me. I couldn’t love him any more if I were biologically his dad. He recently professed faith in Jesus and was baptized.

Here’s my problem. He doesn’t know. I know from reading Adopted for Life that you think children should know about their adoption from the very beginning. Whether you’re right or wrong, that’s just not what we did. He only knows me as his Dad. Maybe even more important, we just don’t know how to tell him he was conceived in rape.

I don’t think a nine year-old could understand that. I’m not sure he’ll ever be able to understand that, without it shaping the way he thinks about himself. Might it even lead him to think that he’s genetically “predisposed” to that kind of behavior himself (whether rape or suicide or whatever)?

So here’s my question. Is it my Christian obligation to tell my son about the circumstances of his birth or is it my obligation to protect him from that knowledge? If I do need to tell him, at what age and how?

In Christ,

Agonized Dad

Dear A.D.,

I am sorry to hear of this horrible hurt that your family, particularly your wife, have been through. This won’t be easy. Here’s what I think your ethical obligations are.

You’re to pattern your fatherhood after another, an already existing eternal Fatherhood of God (Eph. 3:15). But our Father in the heavenly places also adopted his children after a horrific tragedy (Rom. 8; Gal. 4; Eph. 1). Model your parenting of your son through this after the way our Father has parented us.

Yes, you must be honest. God honestly speaks to his children about the circumstances of their backgrounds, whether back there in Ur or back there in Egypt or back there in the “power of the air.” You must not hide this from your son. Imagine what it would be like if he were to find this information out from someone other than you. He would then wonder whether everything in his life is fraudulent and illusory.

Having said that, you must not “exasperate your son” (Eph. 6:4) with knowledge he can’t handle. A nine year-old lacks the maturity to understand this horror in its fullness.

Our Father God doesn’t tell us everything he has to say to us as soon as he announces the gospel after the Fall (Gen. 3:15). He speaks for thousands of years “in many times and in many ways” until finally in “these last days” he speaks to us in Christ (Heb. 1:1-2). It isn’t until the “fullness of time” that God reveals the mystery of Christ in a way not known to the previous generations of prophets (Gal. 4:4; Eph. 3:5). But God did, in all those times, reveal Christ. When we received the full revelation of the mystery, everything else he said tied together in Christ.

You must do the same, preparing your son to be able to see himself apart from the circumstances of his conception.

I’d start by, as the years go by, telling stories about children who came from an evil parent or an evil situation. Take time to find these themes, and not just in Bible stories (Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker will do, if that’s what your son likes), and teach the truth of Scripture that one isn’t biologically determined toward his forefathers’ sin. Point out all the evil and treachery in Jesus’ family line, evil and treachery that didn’t implicate him in the least.

In your son’s life, show him all the ways he resembles you, and tell him why: because a son learns to be like his father by watching his father (John 5:19).

Start out, very soon, by telling your son, when you tell him his adoption story, that he was born after a lot of hurt and a lot of pain, but that God brought good (your son) even out of some of the most tremendous times of hurting. You don’t need to go beyond that, for now. But start showing your son how God continually brings blessing out of curse, even out of sin.

When you determine that your son has the maturity to receive this knowledge, tell him. Expect him to be hurt by this news. There is no easy way to take it, for all kinds of reasons. Honor your wife in this. Show your son what a hero she was in protecting and loving her son. Point out all the ways he is like her.

Assure him that, despite the human horror of his conception, he’s not an accident. God watched out for his mother, and for him, by seeing to it that he would have a father who would love him and raise him.

And then tell him what your Father has told you in Christ: “You are my beloved son, and with you I am well pleased.”

Do you have an ethical question? Send it to me at questions@russellmoore.com. I’ll keep it anonymous and change all the identifying details.

Faith Redeemed

The Suffering Christian

Quote - Innocent Native Who Never Hears Christ

Quote - History of God's Grace

A Sober Perspective for Christmas - 2011

Faith Is Like A Roller Coaster...But More Exciting

Marriage

Paul Washer - Biblical Womanhood

Divided the Movie Preview

Please Help with Supporting Justin Peters' Ministries

RC Sproul Interviews DA Carson on Biblical Exegesis

Christopher Hitchens vs WIlliam Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate

D.A. Carson - How Do You Explain the Gospel in Five Minutes

Thor - A Real World Savior?

Is Separation of Church and State Important?

Alvin Plantinga - Science and Religion: Where the Real Conflict Lies

The Church Needs More Sexy Men

Russell Moore - Wrestling with Assurance

Rob Bell's Heresy Summed by Wretched

Rob Bell Examined on Wretched

Bob Jennings - Lessons Learned From Cancer

Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox - Is God great?

Paul Washer - A Young Man's Invitation to a Life of Sacrifice

Rob Bell Squirms - "You're Amending The Gospel So That It's Palatable!"

2011 Resolved conference

He Gave the Sea His Decree

Bell Denies That He Is A Universalist

Moore to the Point of Rob Bell

How Do You Account For the Hope That Is In You?

David Platt - What Happens to Those Who Never Hear the Gospel

Commentary on Challies' Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"

What Are Bell's Early Reviews Saying?

Bell Being Exposed Sooner than Anticipated

Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell?

Bell's Hell

Fighting for the Faith - Rob Bell - Love Wins Critique

Rick Warren @ 2010 Desiring God Conference

Why Does the Bible Mention Unicorns?

John Lennox - 2 Scratches vs 3.5 Billion Letters

What is the Bible About?

People Matter Most

What Vessels Like Hitchens Show Us...

The Gift of Language

The Offense of the Gospel in Alabama

Paul Washer - Churches Using Carnal Means

A Call For Discernment by Justin Peters

Tim Keller - The Gospel and Idolatry - Acts 19:23-41

Quote - Rooted in Spiritual Ignorance

What is the Gospel

Ligonier Ministries 2011 National Conference

Quote - There's nobody in that Grave!

David Platt - Angel kills 185,000 men

David Platt - Incomprehensible Great God

Top 10 Videos on My YouTube Channel

John Piper's Return Date

The Gospel Coalition 2011 Conference - Tim Keller and Don Carson

The Christian Christmas Celebration Dilema

David Platt - Radical Risk, Radical Reward Highlights

Quote - The girl nobody wanted...

Using Our Inside Voice in Proclaiming Synthetic Life Creation

Your Worldview Dictates Your Evidential Interpretation

Free Audio files from Crossway on YouTube

ESV Audio Bible, Gospel of John, Chapter 1

A Picutre of Hades

Consider Your Calling

Do Militant Pro-Lifer's in the Trenches Need to Back Off?

A Work in Progress

Pray for Paul Washer's 3 w/k Missionary Journey starting Apr. 28th

How to disarm an Angry Person

Should I Tell My Child He Was Conceived in Rape? My Response (Dr. Moore)