Dawn's Deliberations

Are You Compromised?

2010-09-15T13:59:00.002-05:00

I've caught myself lately saying and doing things that I shouldn't say or do. Roy, of Arminian Today, has written an excellent article on sinning and how to recognize and remove the sin in our lives that we've allowed to creep in over time.

25 Wonderful Years!

2010-08-16T05:00:00.010-05:00

We were just babies!
It was Sunday, March 10, 1985. Several of us "singles" had congregated in the foyer of the church trying to decide where we all would meet for lunch. As we stood chatting, a young man introduced himself to me. His name was Alan and he was a friend of a few of the guys who were a part of our "singles" group.

We arrived at our destination and I sat in the middle section of the looong table at the restaurant. Alan ended up sitting to my left. I was busy chatting with my friends to the right side of me while he chatted to his friends on his left. When the food was served we both sat straight forward in our chairs and began to talk to each other. He was funny and kind and had the cutest dimples and a sweet smile. After lunch, several of us decided to meet at a local park. I was definitely interested in Alan and was pleased that he would be joining the group at the park. We all had fun at the park and left in time to go home to get ready again for church that evening. Alan said he wouldn't be able to make it to the evening service but said he would be able to join us for coffee afterwards at Coco's and asked me to save him a seat.

He arrived at Coco's and sat near me and we chatted and laughed and had a great time. He asked me for my phone number when we all left to go home and called me within a few days. We talked for hours and hours. We discussed everything about life (e.g., the Lord, friendship, dating, what we expected in a spouse, etc.). After those first few phone calls, he came to visit me every night at my aunt's house (which is where I lived at the time), even though he lived clear across town. I was enamored. He was everything I'd ever wanted in a boyfriend and potential spouse: a true christian, cute, on his way to obtaining a higher education, sweet, kind, funny, easy going, well mannered, employed with career aspirations, etc. I wondered if he was really as nice as he seemed to be. He was the nicest guy I'd ever met!

My mom loved him. I would call her often to let her know how things were progressing. I was falling in love with him, but I didn't want to rush the relationship. I told my mom that I was afraid that I was falling for him too fast. She told me that it doesn't necessarily take a long time to fall in love.

We were engaged within a month. Yikes! He wanted to have a wedding. I.Did.Not. I tend to be on the shy side and don't like to be the center of attention. Brides are usually(!) the center of attention at a wedding. Anyway, he talked me into having a wedding. We prayed about getting married...a lot. We didn't want to make a huge mistake. For us, marriage was a lifetime commitment. Somehow, I finally talked him out of having a wedding and we eloped 25 years ago today! It feels like yesterday. I'm still madly, deeply in love with him. And guess what! He really IS as nice as he seems to be!

I love you Sweetie! God has blessed me beyond measure! Praise His Name!

Thanks for reading. Have a blessed day!

Dad Life

2010-06-27T15:14:00.001-05:00

I think you all will like this!

Dad Life from Church on the Move on Vimeo.

Tim Hawkins-Old Rock Star Songs

2010-04-07T12:04:00.007-05:00

HT:Leo of Adding My Views

The Day Obama Care Died

2010-02-12T16:37:00.003-06:00

This is a must see video. It is a parody by Paul Shanklin of Obama singing the above titled song to the tune of American Pie!! Even if you love Obama and you have an iota of a sense of humor, you'll enjoy it!

O Holy Night

2009-12-23T16:18:00.003-06:00

O Holy Night

O holy night! The stars are brightly shining, It is the night of our dear Saviour's birth. Long lay the world in sin and error pining. Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth. A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices, For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn. Fall on your knees! Oh, hear the angel voices! O night divine, O night when Christ was born.

Sharing A Little Water

2009-11-19T01:58:00.010-06:00

I received the following email as it appears below. The very last sentence is SO true. If it hasn't already happened, I hope your heart will be awakened to how much animals really need our love and care.

Email:

At 120 degrees in Australia, it was so hot for a week that Koalas were asking people for water. It's never before been seen.

One went to a house to try to hide from the heat and to get a bit of shade and here's what happened when the owner gave him something to drink. It's really cute.

Until one has loved an animal, part of their soul remains unawakened.

Halloween Humor

2009-10-30T18:12:00.003-05:00

My Current Favorite

2009-10-10T16:42:00.005-05:00

You may have to view a few times to catch all the cuteness.

A Bit of Humor

2009-10-05T07:13:00.008-05:00

Please take a quick look at the following 20 second video before reading the rest of this post which continues after the video. Once you resume reading the rest of this post, keep what you have seen in the video in mind.

First, a little background for those who don't follow politics or live in a different country. President Obama wants to pass a questionable version of a healthcare reform bill which has become a heated and mostly partisan issue. In this portion of his speecch to Congress, Obama, a Democrat, is explaining what the bill will not do. Representative Joe Wilson, a Republican, shouts out, "You lie!" because he doesn't believe Obama is telling the truth. (Rep. Wilson later apologized to President Obama for his rude behavior.)

SCROLL

One morning during the church service our Calvinist Pastor (we're Arminians) announced that he would soon be begin an expository teaching on the book of Romans. A minute later my husband hands me a note. It read:

"When he gets to Romans 9 you must refrain from shouting, "You Lie!""

Needless to say, I struggled to maintain my compsure going back and forth from a poker face to a smile for a few minutes. :-)

Please know that we LOVE, LOVE, LOVE our pastor. Hubby was just having a little fun.

The Economy Is So Bad That...

2009-10-04T21:11:00.004-05:00

The economy is so bad that I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.

It's so bad, I ordered a burger at McDonalds and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that?"

The economy is so bad that CEO's are now playing miniature golf.

The economy is so bad if the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them.

The economy is so bad Hot Wheels and Matchbox stocks are trading higher than GM.

The economy is so bad McDonalds is selling the 1/4 ouncer.

The economy is so bad parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.

The economy is so bad a truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico .

The economy is so bad Dick Cheney took his stockbroker hunting.

The economy is so bad Motel Six won't leave the light on anymore.

The economy is so bad the Mafia is laying off judges.

The economy is so bad Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.

And finally...

Congress says they are looking into this Bernard Madoff scandal. Oh Great!! The guy who made $50 Billion disappear is being investigated by the people who made $1.5 Trillion disappear!

Gimme Shelter

2009-06-12T00:49:00.009-05:00

I love the song Gimme Shelter by the Rolling Stones (with vocalist Merry Clayton--very powerful, listen closely) and I love the way Mick Jagger and Ben Affleck have teamed up to raise funds and bring awareness to the atrocities happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It's too bad that these people aren't being given the gospel of Jesus Christ that they might be saved and be changed.

It is unfortunate that campaigns of awareness such as these are mostly done through celebrities and non-Christian entities. I'm not saying that the Christian world isn't trying to feed and medically heal the the poor because they are, but the Christian world seems to be more concerned with itself rather than with others. Having spectacular buildings and compounds are more important to the Christian these days than starving, oppressed and lost souls.

Much more could be said, but I fear we will soon be reaping what we have been sowing.

Bravo!

2009-03-26T14:24:00.004-05:00

Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP for South East England, gives a speech during Gordon Brown´s visit to the European Parliament on 24th March, 2009. Read Daniel´s blog at www.hannan.co.uk

My favorite part: "You know and we know and you know that we know it [the ability to weather this financial storm] is nonsense."

Infuriating

2009-03-02T15:22:00.001-06:00

This is an old video, but this is what liberals want the amnesty bill to allow.

Beware: Four Paws, Inc. Pimple Ball

2008-11-17T16:32:00.005-06:00

If you have pets or know someone who does, please be sure to share the information in the following link with them about the dangers of the pimple toy series made by Four Paws, Inc.

This is Chai's story.

Obama's View of Christianity

2008-08-23T14:46:00.003-05:00

Listen Up Husbands!

2008-07-21T07:28:00.001-05:00

My Favorite Betty Jean Robinson Song

2008-07-12T06:50:00.001-05:00

Reasons To Remain A Calvinist

2008-06-05T14:26:00.011-05:00

Keith Schooley, an Arminian, has extended an olive branch, so to speak, to our Calvinist brothers and sisters. He starts off:

As much as I disagree with Calvinism as an interpretive scheme for understanding soteriology, there are worse errors to fall into. As an olive branch to my brothers and sisters in Christ, I'd like to offer some valid reasons I can think of to remain within the Calvinist camp.

Read the entire article: Reasons To Remain A Calvinist

A Concise Exegesis of Romans 9

2008-04-24T17:13:00.018-05:00

Romans chapter 9 is one of the biggest "proof texts" Calvinists use to bolster the idea that God has chosen to regenerate some while leaving others dead in their trespasses and sins. I have never interpreted Romans 9 in such a manner. I do, however, see how Calvinists view Romans 9 in such a way, but in doing so one must take this chapter completely out of context and disregard the entire history of the Jews and the actual context of the Old Testament scripures from which the apostle Paul quotes!

Thanks to one of the members of SEA for linking to this article on Romans 9 written by Christopher Skinner. I have not read all of Christopher Skinner's website so I cannot say that I agree with everything he has written, but I think he has done an excellent job of capturing the true essence of what Paul was trying to convey in this brief essay on Romans 9.

If you do not believe this is a proper interpretation of Romans 9, then please explain where and why you disagree.

Enjoy!

Society of Evangelical Arminians

2008-04-10T14:35:00.009-05:00

It is with much excitement that I announce the new website Society of Evangelical Arminianism which officially launched Wednesday, April 9, 2008! What a blessing it will be to have an official and much needed presence for the Arminian/non-Calvinist position. There are many qualified contributors, including first rate scholars. I hope you will bookmark the (SEA) site and make it a regular read.

Re-Post: Law? Grace? Or Both?

2008-04-03T00:09:00.020-05:00

Kevin at Seekadoo has an article on Theology and The Slave Trade. Kevin mentioned the death penalty in the article and I was curious as to his view on the issue; he so graciously obliged. I decided to re-post the article I wrote two years ago this month since it is relevant and a little more detailed than my response to his explanation and since I'm too busy at the moment to do any real blogging. I must warn you that it is a bit long. So, if you're interested, grab a cuppa, sit back and read.

April 20, 2006

I often hear some Christians make the statement that we are under grace meaning that we are no longer under the law and that we are not to enforce the death penalty, not even for murder. Not everyone believes the same thing on these issues. Some believe that, in the eyes of God, the death penalty is a just punishment for murder, but death is too severe a penalty for those who commit “lesser” sins/crimes such as sodomy, adultery, pedophilia, fornication, rebellion against parents, false prophesying, etc., sins/crimes that at one time carried with them the death penalty.

What I don’t understand is when God supposedly changed his stance on the punishment of such sins/crimes. Isn’t the God of the New Testament the same God as the Old Testament? Are these particular sins/crimes any less heinous than they were in OT times? Do they not still cause the same hurt and damage as in ancient times? Where in the scripture does Jesus call for a moratorium on the death penalty or the law in general? When did the sins/crimes which were once worthy of the death penalty become unworthy?

Jesus told us that he came to fulfil the law, not destroy it. (Matthew 5:17) He also said that we were to love the Lord with all our heart, soul and mind and to love our neighbor as ourselves. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40) So we see that we are still expected to obey the laws of God.

Matthew 5:19-20 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

The laws are for our protection spiritually, physically, individually and societally. Instead of our oxen we must make sure our cars are safe and not harmful to ourselves and others. The OT had safety codes for building, as we do today. It had “plumbing”ordinances, as we do today, etc., etc. Though our technology has changed, we still obey the spirit of the law.

I’m not saying that we are to be legalistic or that we are still under the curse of the law. Please do not misunderstand. I’m simply saying that while we ARE under grace, that grace does not negate God’s law. There has always been grace with God. Look at how He handled Adam and Eve's sins. He allowed them to live for a good long time instead of killing them on the spot. Look at how longsuffering He was toward mankind throughout history. He warned and warned and warned for hundreds of years before He passed judgment. Look at how longsuffering He continues to be with us today: both sinner and saint.

The difference in the grace that we’re under today is that Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice. God has made an easier way of salvation: no more blood sacrifice! We can now come boldly to the throne of grace through Jesus. WE are now priests and sons.

Some people misunderstand what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5. The Pharisees had made their own laws and perverted the law of God. Jesus was showing that our very actions are all a matter of the heart, as they always have been. If we love our neighbor, we won’t want to kill him. If we hate our neighbor, we’re killing him in our hearts, even if we don’t act out on that hatred. Both are sin. He was teaching that just because we refrain from killing someone doesn’t mean that our hearts are right with God. He was not saying that we do away with the death penalty.

Also, He was not saying that the law of an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth had been negated, rather he was saying that we are not to take the law into our own hands; we are to let the law/authorities handle it. If someone slaps us on the cheek, we're to walk away, if we're able, and refrain from retaliation (turn the other cheek). If we, for some reason, cannot get away from a person and that person continues to attack us, then by all means we are allowed to defend ourselves, but we're to keep the peace as much as we are able. If someone destroys our property, we are not to retaliate and destroy their property. We are to turn the other cheek, contact the authorities and let them handle it through the law. God has ordained our earthly governments to award restitution when necessary or carry out punishment for those who disobey the law.

Romans 13:1-7 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

I often hear that the law of God was only for the Israelites. I disagree with that assessment, though I’ve not really heard an in depth explanation of that assessment. The only thing I’ve heard was that since Israel was a new nation that God had to be strict and nip sin/crime in the bud. Why would it be any different for the rest of the world? Did not God give Adam and Noah some system of law to pass down to their posterity, essentially non-Israelites? Isn’t the law our schoolmaster showing us that we are indeed sinners (Jew AND Gentile); thus, the need for a Savior? Are not sinners to ultimately be judged by the law of God? I think the law is for everyone, but it was the Israelites that recorded the law for all posterity. The law is written on all of our hearts. (The entire Bible is written to everyone, but especially to the Christian.) Of course the Christian community is more apt to obey the laws of God, though secular societies still follow God's law somewhat.

If Jesus were here ruling and reigning, He would certainly be enforcing His law and He will when He returns. Would one think that Jesus was unjust in ruling with a rod of iron by enforcing His law and meting out the just punishments?

Revelation 19:11-17 “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;”

You may say, “Well, that is Jesus and He has that authority.” True, but I believe that if an earthly government decides to follow the Lord, then it is obligated to follow the law of God as given in the Holy Bible. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where God said that nations were not allowed to follow the law of God unless it was the nation of Israel.

Though I disagree with our founders on some things concerning the law (mainly that they didn't follow the law of God implicitly), I think they at least had good intentions. Many of the things that are legal now were not legal in their day (e.g., sodomy, abortion, adultery, divorce (or at least not easily obtained), pornography (even if it were hand drawn), the promotion of promiscuity, blasphemy, cohabitation, etc). Little by little these laws have been changed because they went against the sensibilities of some (live and let live and/or capital punishment is uncivilized), and the proclivities of others. This type of pity has been a detriment to our society. God has told us not to pity. For when we pity, it leads to leniency which leads to tolerance which leads to acceptance which leads to an indecent and broken society. The least we could have done was to continue to keep these actions illegal and enforce the law.

Deuteronomy 19:21 “And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

I also believe that promiscuity, premarital sex, women who have babies out of wedlock, homosexuality, etc. should be shameful as it once was not too terribly long ago. Even the church no longer deems these acts as shameful. What a travesty! (I'm not saying we're to be judgmental or condemning, so please do not get me wrong.) I truly believe that if it were a shame to engage in this type of behavior that it would deter most people from participating; or, at the very least, they would not be open about their immoral practices.

On a different blogpost my good friend Leo asks, “One question, ok two. Since the USA is not a theocracy, who would carry out the death penalty for sins such as for the sins of sodomy, adultery, rebellion against parents, etc. If such people repent should the powers that be still execute them? John 8:1-11 for the example of a repentant sinner.”

The government would carry out the death penalty for the sins you’ve named just as they carry out the death penalty for murder today. Though, I must remind you that if there is no confession of the crime, there must be two or more witnesses in order to mete out the death penalty. I believe forensic evidence can be considered a witness, if there are no eye witnesses.

Yes, a person who has been duly convicted of a capital crime should still be executed, even if they have repented. We see this with the thief on the cross. When our government used to mete out capital punishment swiftly and quickly they always gave the prisoner time to get right with God. I think that if our government executed prisoners quickly, their punishment would be much more of a deterrent. I think that it wouldn’t take too many executions of rebellious teens/young adults, adulterers, sodomites, etc. before people would begin to think twice before they committed a crime punishable by death.

As for the John 8:1-11 account of the adulteress, I have never seen that scripture as a moratorium on the death penalty. My bible teacher explains this beautifully, I think. I will cut and paste his exegesis of these verses of scripture. It is rather lengthy, but WELL worth the read. (All emphasis in original)

The Pericope de Adultera

Comment: If the woman were caught in the very act, where was the
man? God required that both should be stoned (Lev.20:10; Deu.22:22-24). Jesus knew the entire matter was a set up for the purpose of placing Him on the horns of a dilemma. If He said stone her according to the Law of the O.T., He would be in trouble with the Roman authorities. If He said to release her from the demand of the Law, the people would reject His claims as Messiah for Messiah would never go against the Word of God.

One reason that so many religious leaders and laymen oppose the inclusion of these verses, called the pericope de adultera in theologicalscholastic circles ("pericope" is a short selection from a book), is due to their lack of understanding it and thus an inability to properly exegete the story. The forgiveness which Christ bestowed upon the adulteress is contrary to the conviction of many that the punishment for adultery should be very severe. For most, the solution is to merely conclude that Jesus' coming to earth has somehow nullified the Laws of God; that God no longer punishes sin but has now "become" a God of mercy, love and compassion. The story seems to offer too many inexplicable contradictory problems for most, and since they cannot understand the verses – they raise their vote to exclude them from the Scriptures. It requires great humility to admit lack of insight. Such men rarely will humble their intellect before God, constantly labeling paradoxes contained within the covers of the Bible as "unfortunate scribal errors" simply because their wisdom has failed to unravel the paradox.

Far better to confess lack of scholarship, understanding or lack of revelation than to insist, as most do, that the short-coming must be with the Scriptures themselves (Man's pride and ego must be served at all cost!). Many of us are self deceived, imagining that we "believe" the Word of God. The Lord has deliberately written as He has to bring us to the point of honesty. When we are confronted with seemingly contradictory places in Scripture, what is our response? The response reveals the actual condition of the heart and ego. Do we now still believe or do we place our intellects above the Word, deciding that because we could not solve the apparent discrepancy – the Scripture must contain error.

Although not claiming inerrant insight into all such matters, we do not allow any errors within the Holy Writ – scribal or otherwise. We confess ignorance, even hardness of heart, in areas that result in our lack of revelation from above. We cannot explain all paradoxical parts of Scripture, but in calm assurance we rest in faith that the solutions are present within the pages of Scripture itself. No outside information need be brought to bear on the problem to "add light" to the Word. How does one add light to blinding revelation?

THE "PERICOPE" EXPLAINED

As to the story before us, we find Jesus conducting a "Bible study" at the Temple area. Suddenly the lesson is interrupted by a commotion as the scribes and Pharisees cast before Jesus and the "Church" a terrified believer, possibly clutching ashamedly at a bed sheet in an attempt to clothe herself and hide her humiliation. These religious leaders care nothing for her life or her shame. For them she is but the means, the bait for the trap with which they seek to hopelessly ensnare our Lord. These men are not "seekers of truth" as they pretend. Their motive is to secure the death of their antagonist, and if this woman must die also in securing that end, so be it.

When Jesus saw that the equally guilty man was not present, He knew their motive. Further, He knew the man must be of some importance, influential in the community or else the man would also now be before Him. Moreover it is quite possible that the man was himself one of the leaders – having deliberately seduced the woman thereby "sacrificing himself" to commit the act as part of a conspiracy for the very purpose of entrapping Jesus. "But what sayest thou?" that they might have something with which to accuse Him, they inquired. Thus, the real issue before us is actually that of "authority" (cp. verse 36!).

It is most important that the reader realize that Jesus did not set aside the Laws of God or make an exception with this woman as though God had changed His mind or had "softened" from the Old Testament to the New Testament – that God was a God of wrath in the Old but had somehow "evolved" into a God of love, grace, and compassion in the New. God loved and had compassion on the exposed adulterers all throughout the Old Testament. He certainly did not love or feel more compassion for her than any before her. It was always the sin itself that He hated, but His holy nature and justice then as now, called for righteous judgment and punishment. God never changes (Mal.3:6).

First, this was still the time of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant could not come into effect until the required blood of the Covenant was shed. But the reader must come to see that Jesus perfectly upheld the demand of the Law – Jesus actually told these religious unbelievers to stone her (verse 7)! He told them to obey the Law – but dealt with their consciences, bathed in murder as they were, by the prefacing remark "He that is without sin among you" let him cast the first stone. The idea behind this stipulation was twofold. First, Jesus caught them unawares in that rather than having the "Bible study group" carry out the stoning, Jesus called on the unregenerate scribes and Pharisees to perform the deed. Thus if they so did, it would be they whom the Roman authorities would come against and not Jesus. They would have fallen into the pit that they themselves had dug (Pro.26:27). The Romans had taken the power of life and death away from the conquered Jews (Joh.18:31), and Roman law did not condemn an adulteress to be put to death.

In the second place, Jesus is challenging them to merely obey the law to which they so devotedly cleave. Jesus is calling on the required two or three eye witnesses (Deu.17:6-7) to now step forward. If they are credible witnesses, they must now identify themselves and also make known the identity of the man. If they will not identify the man they will be disobeying the law and thus will incur guilt. The man having been summoned, the stoning could continue but the first stones must be cast by these same men.

The qualifying "without sin" in Scriptural context with regard to witnesses, does not mean "moral perfection" as many suppose, thereby creating a problem here that does not exist. The context refers to the witnesses not being guilty of sin with respect to their being false or unrighteous witnesses in the matter at hand (cp. Lev.20:10; Deu.17:6-7; Exo.23:1-2 & 7; Deu.19:15-19 and Pro.6:16-19). This is especially made clear in Exodus 23:1-2, 7. The Deuteronomy 19 passages continue the theme of dealing with false witnesses by God's charging the judges with the responsibility of having the sentence that would have been applied to the accused meted out to the false witness. The implication from Jesus' stipulation is that if they obey God, being innocent and without sin regarding this matter, God would doubtless protect them from the Roman authorities. If, however, they are not – well then, they could not expect to be so delivered could they? They would thus incur the same penalty.

What the Lord wrote upon the ground is not recorded, but whatever it was, it had the effect of convicting each of the accusers in his conscience. As one of the main functions of the Law was to convict of sin (Rom.3:20, 7:7 & 8b; 7:13), we are certain that which He wrote was Scripture and from the Law. Besides, it was the Law upon which they hoped to trap Jesus (vs.5), yet now through a word of wisdom (I Cor.12:8; Heb.2:4) the Lord Jesus had used the very same to ensnare them in their own pit. We do not wish to be dogmatic or presumptuous; nevertheless, we strongly maintain that the narrative's context makes plain that Jesus included at least part of Leviticus 20:10 in what He wrote the first time.

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death (Lev.20:10)."

We further affirm, judging from the effect upon these men bent as they were on the destruction of the Lord, the second time Jesus stooped down He wrote from Deuteronomy 19:15-19. These verses have the sobering effect of reminding any "unrighteous" or "false" witnesses that the penalty which they had hoped to inflict upon the accused, would instead be carried out on them! Even though the woman was actually guilty, without two or three of them stepping forward and identifying the man – they would be false and unrighteous with regard to the matter. Moreover, if they now come forward and attempt to only stone the woman, not being willing to also name the man, they will bring upon themselves the selfsame judgment. They filed out from the most honorable to those of the least repute (the probable sense). No one came forward.

The Lord Jesus did not condone the woman's adultery but, as merely the "second man" and the "last Adam" (I Cor.15:45,47), He had no authority to overturn the Roman law and have her stoned. What we are saying is that even though Jesus was God come down to earth, the Judge of all flesh – He had not come in that capacity at this time. This He shall do upon His return. As Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 2:5-18 explain, Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant, humbled Himself to human limitations, entered the arena of human affairs and though He never ceased to be God, He went about defeating the Devil and redeeming the fallen race purely as an unfallen man. In so doing, He demonstrated that the first Adam could have defeated Satan in the contest in Eden – that Satan is so limited that an unfallen man can defeat him and be victorious over temptation and sin by standing on God's Word, be it written as in Jesus' case (Mat.4:1-11) or only spoken as in Adam's case (Gen.2:16-17).

Thus the Judge had laid aside His Judicial Robe and had voluntarily accepted certain limitations including that of submission to the will of the Father in all matters. Jesus had divested Himself of all authority to act in the capacity as a Judge. Lest the reader doubt this or consider such a declaration offensive or demeaning to the person and Holy character of our Lord, remember that Jesus Himself so taught on another occasion (Luk.12:13-14).

Now observe what the Master teacher has accomplished. The Lord Jesus would not deal with the woman in the presence of unbelievers (I Cor.6:1 & 6). His tactic emptied the "Bible study" of the lost hypocrites. This freed Him to deal with her among and within the family of God. The unnamed woman was said to be standing "in the midst" (vs.9). Had everyone left, how could she have been "in the midst"? It does not say that all the people whom our Lord had been instructing went out, but only her accusers, having been convicted. The rest (vs.2) continued with their teacher, the adulteress being in their midst (cp. vs 3b, "in the midst"). Jesus is "left alone" in the sense that His antagonists, having departed, left Him with only true seekers – those of His own "family". It cannot mean "alone" in the absolute sense for we know that the woman was there. The "none" of verse 10 is with regard to the accusers who had burst in with her.

The point being made is that the Lord does not deal with His own concerning their sins in the presence of the wicked. Now that the "courtroom" had been cleared of the infidels, the problem at hand could be handled as a family matter. She is dealt with fully in accord with the principles of the Law, and with "Church" discipline! Jesus had not accepted the testimony of these wicked lost men, men with murder in their hearts, as being credible or valid against a sinning saint. The matter would be handled much as an unconfirmed bad report.

Now He, according to the exact instructions of the Law, brought the "court" to order – calling for the credible witnesses against her (vs.10)! Reader, see it clearly that Jesus is not abrogating the Law as nearly all teach. He said He had not come to do that (Mat.5:17-19)!

Two eye witnesses were required by the law to implement its being carried out (Joh.8:17) and the eye witnesses had to cast the first stones. The death penalty could not be meted out as there were none present. To now do so would actually violate the specific instructions so carefully detailed within the Law. As only an earthly human Judge – Jesus cannot now lawfully condemn her to death; there are no witnesses to her deed present! Truly, the Law had been used by Jesus "lawfully" (I Tim.1:8).

"But how do we know that she was a believer?", one protests – by the way Jesus handled the matter as explained above. Were she a pagan, the manner with which she was dealt within the "Bible study" would make no sense. Next, though not of itself conclusive, she addressed Jesus as "Lord" (vs.11).

Decisive, however, was Jesus' final remark to the woman. Were she unregenerate the Lord's words "go, and sin no more" would be meaningless and vacuous. In the first place, without the Holy Spirit's presence and power in her life, she would be helpless to refrain for long without sin again taking dominion over her.

Secondly and conclusively, she would be no better off with such instructions from Christ as she had been when she had been so unceremoniously brought to Him at the first – for she would still be lost and hell bound even if she never sinned again. The sin she had just committed would doom her apart from a sin substitute – a Savior. Such instructions would only benefit a believer who has fallen into the snare of sin.

But was not Jesus letting her off too easy for such a flagrant shameful sin? Shouldn't she have gotten what she deserved? First, we all deserve to be banished to hell forever – we all have dared to sin against a three times Holy God. By His marvelous plan of redemption through faith in Christ Jesus, God has made a way for Him to deal with us in both mercy and justice such that we are disciplined but not condemned. When He deals with our sin in any way that is less than eternal exile to the lake that forever burns with fire, we all get off "easy" – though it may not seem so at the moment.

Next, we affirm that she did not get off easily. Forever with her would be the humiliation of being caught in the very act of adultery. She had been brought out and terrified with the threat of public execution. What wild fear must have raced through her heart! Consider the shame of being thrust before your own local Bible study half covered – men so bent on the destruction of another would certainly not have allowed time for her to have made herself more "presentable". Brought low before those who know you and the fact of your hypocrisy laid open for all to see – was this really getting off "easy"?

But there is more. To be brought, degraded and disheveled, before the Savior face to face after having just failed Him so ignominiously would not be light discipline. Further, the Name of her God had been dishonored for now the scoffers would mock.

Finally, though forgiven of this sin – and let all observe and mark that Jesus did call adultery "sin", not an "affair between consenting adults" or "a meaningful relationship" – the woman had lost eternal rewards. Blessings that God desired to heap upon her for all eternity, He now in righteousness could not so shower. Oh reader, to forever lose something that He who loves you and died for you would have given you, is not that just punishment? Yes, for such is the actual discipline that was discharged.

Moreover, we do not know if further ramifications followed as venereal disease, pregnancy, loss of husband and/or children (if applicable in her case), loss of job, depression, guilt, etc. Having one's sins forgiven does not mean that the consequences of the sin are obliterated in this life. David was forgiven in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, but the consequences that were set in motion by the sin followed David to his grave. It is to David's credit that he never accused God of dealing too severely with him or whined concerning the matter. For many, stoning would have been the preferred choice over the above. No, her sin was neither condoned nor soft peddled.

Lest the reader still have the slightest reservation that our major points have been inaccurate or mistaken, we call to his attention that these same points are confirmed, being presented afterward in the same chapter! Jesus asserted that He was not there to judge men (vs.15), not yet (cp. John 5:22; 18:36 - i.e.," now")! But if He does judge now (in questions other than civil or criminal matters) in "Family" matters and the like, His judgment will be true (vs.16). In the same verse, Jesus acknowledges that He is not executing this wisdom by His own God power and attributes, but by the power and wisdom of His Father (via the gifts of the Holy Spirit, Heb.2:4 etc.). He then brings up the point from the Law which calls for the necessity of at least the attestation of two witnesses in establishing truth (vs.17), and in verse 36 Jesus makes unmistakably clear that He has final authority.

Majestically, we have seen the Lord Jesus the Christ in an awesome display of wisdom, mercy, love and compassion employ only several Scriptures from the Law and merely 15 words (only 9 in the Greek) to vanquish the wicked. Then with only 21 words (Greek = 18), He both judged and restored a sinning saint. Truly – He is Worthy!

You are correct when you stated in a previous comment that Christians who commit sin will lose rewards in heaven, even if they get away with not having received the ultimate earthly punishment, whatever that may be. For they will be punished here on earth in some form because God is not mocked and we reap what we have sown.

So I guess my questions for the person who believes that we no longer have to obey the law or that capital punishment has been done away with, or only partially done away with are:

1) Where do you get that only the nation of Israel is to obey the Law of God and not the Christians of today?

2) When did this change [that the people of God are no longer required to obey and enforce the law of God] take place?

3) Why NOT execute people for these crimes? Are these crimes any less destructive spiritually, physically, individually and societally?

4) Where does it state in the bible that we are allowed to sentence someone to the death penalty for murder, but we are no longer allowed to sentence death for other crimes that once required the death penalty (e.g., homosexuality, adultery, pedophilia, etc.)?

5) Do you not see that executions in these matters would very likely be rare if we were to enforce God’s Law and do so quickly and swiftly?

Another Amazing Video

2008-04-02T10:49:00.010-05:00

This video is amazing. I hope you will take the time to click and watch. I have tried to embed the video here, but it will not copy over correctly.

Amazing Video

Animal Cruelty

2008-03-06T14:06:00.017-06:00

I am so glad that the world is finally taking notice and doing something about Animal Cruelty. The video is in the right column.

God gave us dominion over the animals and the earth. We're to be good stewards over them. We should treat animals humanely up until the time they are to be prepared as the food we eat. It breaks my heart to see these animals treated so inhumanely. Animals have feelings just like the rest of us. They experience fear, joy, sadness, uncomfortableness (e.g., being too cold or too hot, hunger, allergies, etc.), pain, etc. I hope more people will realize this and hold meat, poultry and seafood plants accountable for the way they conduct business with regard to their treatment of animals. (The fisheries are guilty of senselessly killing dolphins, turtles and other animals by drowning them in their nets. There are devices which could remedy this problem.)

In A Yugo

2008-03-04T10:52:00.007-06:00

by Paul Shanklin

I don't think the video is all that great, but I LOVE the song. It's my favorite from Paul Shanklin. I would suggest you just read the words while the video is playing since the video doesn't really do the song any justice.

In A Yugo
by Paul Shanklin

As the snow flies

At a used car lot on the edge of town
A liberal guy and a liberal gal
Buy a Yugo

And they drive with pride

Cause if there's one thing that this world needs
It's environmental friends who'll take the lead
In a Yugo

They say, "people don't you understand
Those suburbans are ruining the land"
But they'll wish they had a full size van one day
They point fingers at you and me
They say we're too blind to see
But do we simply use our heads
And choose another way?

As those small wheels turn
Fifty miles to the gallon
And their knees on their chest
They're gonna save enough gas
For all of the rest
In a Yugo

Then one day on the interstate
They suddenly lose control
They swerve to miss a baby duck
They're squashed beneath a produce truck

But they drove with pride...

And as the crowds drive past a little flat car
You know they saved a lot of gas
But they didnt get far
In a Yugo

And as they're trapped inside
At a used car lot on the other side of town
A liberal guy and a liberal gal
Buy a Yugo....

And they drive with pride...

Loves Me Like Barack

2008-03-04T10:41:00.002-06:00

Disclaimer: Barack Hussein Obama claims to be a Christian and not a Muslim. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I still think this video is hilarious. I especially love the Oprah part.

Welcome Rachael!

2008-02-29T18:49:00.002-06:00

I'd like to welcome Rachael to the blogosphere. She has started a blog dedicated to Women Studying the Scriptures. I appreciate Rachael's dedication to being true to the scriptures no matter how unpopular the subject matter may be in our post-modern times, even among Christians.

Welcome, Rachael!

JC Thibodaux

2008-02-22T19:14:00.004-06:00

I neglected to mention another blogger that I respect and am blessed to have discovered. JC Thibodaux is a contributor to Ben Henshaw's blog Arminian Perspectives and he has his own web site In Death or Life.

UPDATE: While I am at it I should also mention another good resource for the Calvinism vs. Arminianism controversy. Richard Coords has a site dedicated to this debate called Examining Calvinism

A Controversial Movie

2008-02-22T02:25:00.012-06:00

Thanks to Roy Ingle for the link to the trailer for the movie Expelled which is to be released Spring of 2008. It is about the Creation vs. Evolution controversy.

I am looking forward to seeing the movie and I believe it will spark much debate. Let us pray that those watching the movie would be directed to seek out the Creator God.

Expelled

Some Great Blogs I've Discovered

2008-01-26T10:50:00.003-06:00

A few months ago I discovered some really great blogs. Having read them over the months, I find their theology to be exegetically sound; though, I disagree with their belief that a person can lose their salvation. I understand where they are coming from because I once believed salvation could be lost. I have not read their teachings on this particular issue because I am more concerned right now with their teachings on total depravity, unconditional election and irresistible grace. I am happy to agree to disagree with these fine gentlemen on eternal security.

Ben Henshaw's blog is called Arminian Perspectives

Billy Birch maintains two blogs:

Classical Arminianism
The Green Gospel

Roy Ingle's blog is called Arminian Today

Enjoy!

Two-Day Course For Men

2008-01-11T15:43:00.000-06:00

EVENING CLASSES FOR MEN!

OPEN TO MEN ONLY - ALL ARE WELCOME

Note: Due to the complexity and level of difficulty, each course will accept a maximum of eight participants. The course covers two days, and topics covered in this course include:

DAY ONE

HOW TO FILL ICE CUBE TRAYS
Step-by-step guide with slide presentation

TOILET ROLLS - DO THEY GROW ON THE HOLDERS?
Round table discussion

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LAUNDRY BASKET & FLOOR Practicing with hamper (Pictures and graphics)

DISHES & SILVERWARE - DO THEY LEVITATE/FLY TO KITCHEN SINK OR DISHWASHER BY THEMSELVES?
Debate among a panel of experts.

REMOTE CONTROL
Losing the remote control - Help line and support groups

LEARNING HOW TO FIND THINGS
Starting with looking in the right place instead of turning the house upside down while screaming - Open forum

DAY TWO

EMPTY MILK CARTONS - DO THEY BELONG IN THE FRIDGE OR THE BIN?
Group discussion and role play

HEALTH WATCH - BRINGING HER FLOWERS IS NOT HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH PowerPoint presentation

REAL MEN ASK FOR DIRECTIONS WHEN LOST
Real life testimonial from the one man who did

IS IT GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SIT QUIETLY AS SHE PARALLEL PARKS?
Driving simulation

LIVING WITH ADULTS - BASIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR PARTNER Online class and role playing

HOW TO BE THE IDEAL SHOPPING COMPANION
Relaxation exercises, meditation and breathing techniques

REMEMBERING IMPORTANT DATES & CALLING WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE LATE Bring your calendar or PDA to class

GETTING OVER IT
Learning how to live with being wrong all the time

Can any of you identify?

Insensitive or Criminal?

2007-12-05T05:41:00.000-06:00

A Wisconsin teacher has been arrested for the following blog comment about Columbine.

"They knew how to deal with the overpaid union thugs. One shot at a time!" he said, adding they should be remembered as heroes.

While I think what he said was reprehensible, I certainly do not think that it was criminal. What say you?

My New Favorite!

2007-11-23T10:00:00.000-06:00

Hiatus

2007-07-20T04:59:00.001-05:00

This video is too sweet!

Pet Hippo

I am going on hiatus until further notice. I need to spend some time away from the blogosphere (theology blogs); though, I hope I won't need to stay away for too long. I'm sure I will lurk from time to time. You all will be in my prayers.

Take Care & God Bless,
Dawn

Just Plain Creepy!

2007-07-15T06:01:00.000-05:00

Why Men Are Never Depressed

2007-06-28T00:24:00.000-05:00

I received this in an email from my husband and thought it was worth posting.

Men Are Just Happier People-- What do you expect from such
simple creatures?

Your last name stays put.
The garage is all yours.
Wedding plans take care of themselves.
Chocolate is just another snack.
You can be President.
You can never be pregnant.
Car mechanics tell you the truth.
The world is your urinal.
You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.
You don't have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
Same work, more pay.
Wrinkles add character.
Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental-$100.
The occasional well-rendered belch is practically expected.
New shoes don't cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
One mood all the time.
Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
You know stuff about tanks.
A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
You can open all your own jars.
You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend.
Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.
Everything on your face stays its original color.
The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
You only have to shave your face and neck.
You can play with toys all your life.
Your belly usually hides your big hips.
One wallet and one pair of shoes -- one color for all seasons.
You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
You can "do" your nails with a pocket knife.
You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.
You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes.

No wonder men are happier.

Time Warner Cable Commercial

2007-06-23T13:57:00.000-05:00

This one is too funny. I don't particularly like the ending, but I think the awkward banter between the two is hilarious. I think we've probably all experienced those awkward moments at the beginning of a relationship at one time or another.

Keep Goulet Away!

2007-06-11T01:55:00.000-05:00

The Wheat and The Tares

2007-06-03T17:36:00.000-05:00

Who are the tares in this parable? Some say they are the people of the world (i.e., the unregenerate within and without the church). Others say they are the unregenerate within the church who profess to be Christians. What say you?

Matthew 13:24-30 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Matthew 13:36-43 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Praise The Lord - Russ Taff

2007-05-08T16:59:00.001-05:00

Eagle Song - The Imperials

2007-04-29T00:13:00.000-05:00

I stood and watched an eagle fly
spread its wings and soared across the sky
so gracefully he flew
rising effortlessly
I wanted to know just how to be free

Tiny fingers curled round mine
perfectly formed, new born
the image of two
infinite mystery
I wanted to know where life comes from

What human intellect can't sway
must be explained away
earth wisdom religions of men
search without end to fill the spirit house within
simplicity of God somehow escapes man

I reached for the eternal one
creation he was waiting to reveal
His purpose in me
He said this is where life begins
I made your spirit to glide on the wind

Come let's glide on the wind
come on let's glide on the wind
on the wind, on the wind, on the wind.

Love Crucified Arose - Michael Card

2007-04-25T03:58:00.000-05:00

Long ago He blessed the earth
Born older than the years
And in the stall a cross He saw
Through the first of many tears
A life of homeless wandering
Cast out in sorrow's way
The Shepherd seeking for the lost
His life, the price He paid

Love crucified, arose
The Risen One in splendor
Jehovah soul Defender
Has won the victory
Love crucified, arose
And the grave became a place of hope
For the heart that sin and sorrow broke
Is beating once again

Throughout Your life You felt the weight
Of what You'd come to give
To drink for us that crimson cup
So we might really live
At last the time to love and die
The dark appointed day
That one forsaken moment
When Your Father turned His face away

Love crucified, arose
The One who lived the died for me
Was Satan's nail-pierced casualty
Now He's breathing once again

Love crucified, arose
And the grave became a place of hope
For the heart that sin and sorrow broke
Is beating once again

Love crucified, arose
The Risen One in splendor
Jehovah soul defender
Has won the victory

Love crucified, arose
And the grave became a place of hope
for the heart that sin and sorrow broke
is beating once again

Love crucified, arose
The One who lived and died for me
Was Satan's nail-pierced casualty
Now He's breathing once again

Thy Word - Amy Grant & Michael W. Smith

2007-04-23T01:23:00.000-05:00

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet
And a light unto my path.
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet
And a light unto my path.

When I feel afraid,
And think I've lost my way.
Still, you're there right beside me.
Nothing will I fear
As long as you are near;
Please be near me to the end.

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet
And a light unto my path.
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet
And a light unto my path.

I will not forget
Your love for me and yet,
My heart forever is wandering.
Jesus by my guide,
And hold me to your side,
And I will love you to the end.

Nothing will I fear
As long as you are near;
Please be near me to the end.

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet
And a light unto my path.
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet
And a light unto my path.
And a light unto my path.
You're the light unto my path.

I fell in love with this song the first time I heard it. I love His word.

To Repent Or Not To Repent - Part IX Conclusion

2007-04-16T14:10:00.000-05:00

Here is the final installment in a nine part series To Repent Or Not to Repent - Part IX

If you're just now joining us and would like to start from the beginning or read this series all at once, please click here.

To Repent Or Not To Repent - Part VIII

2007-04-15T14:51:00.000-05:00

Here is part eight of the series To Repent Or Not to Repent - Part VIII

If you would like to read all of the series at once, feel free.

To Repent Or Not To Repent - Part VII

2007-04-13T12:16:00.000-05:00

Here is part seven of the series To Repent Or Not to Repent - Part VII

If you'd like to read all of the series at once, feel free.

Dancing Horse and Dancing Dog

2007-04-11T17:51:00.000-05:00

This is amazing.

This is sweet.

To Repent Or Not To Repent - Part VI

2007-04-11T07:05:00.000-05:00

Here is part six of the series To Repent Or Not to Repent - Part VI

If you wish to jump ahead or if this is your first visit here, the entire series is linked here.

To Repent Or Not To Repent - Part V

2007-04-10T10:55:00.000-05:00

Here is part five of the series To Repent Or Not to Repent - Part V.

If you wish to skip ahead, please feel free.

To Repent Or Not To Repent - Part IV

2007-04-09T08:55:00.000-05:00

Here is part four of the series To Repent Or Not to Repent - Part IV.

If you would like to skip ahead, feel free.

I especially liked this part.

By TJ Pennock

Sinners do not suddenly one day decide to repent, to turn from unbelief to belief, from rebellion to redemption. No Scripture anywhere says unbelievers can muster up their own repentance. It's not something they can well up within themselves. It's not self generated. In fact, the Bible draws a rather bleak picture of unsaved sinners. They are dead (Eph. 2:1), blind (2 Cor. 4:4), unrighteous (Ro. 3:10), unconcerned (Ro. 3:11), natural (1 Cor. 2:14), darkened (Ro. 1:21), reprobate (Ro. 1:28), foolish (Titus 3:3), disobedient (Titus 3:3), deceived (Titus 3:3), and unregenerate (John 3:3,5). The description goes on (Mk. 7:21-23; Ro. 1:29-31; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Titus 3:3), but the point is clear.

Though there are numerous incentives to repentance (Acts 17:29-31; Ro. 2:4), the ultimate cause is the Holy Spirit. Apart from His conviction ministry (John 16:7-11), a work that reaches the inner sanctum of sinners, there can be no repentance. He and He alone convinces men of sin, opens their eyes, and enables them to repent. Only He can empower spiritually dead sinners to receive Christ. To be sure, Jesus is the Light of the world; and it's the Spirit's ministry to enable the lost to see that Light (Acts 26:18; cf., 2 Cor. 4:4).

Here are several passages describing the Spirit's conviction ministry in sinners. The first is the chief text. We also give two "draw" passages, believing they, too, speak of this peculiar work of conviction. (John 16:7-11; John 6:44,45; John 12:32)

Let's be clear about the Spirit's conviction (John 16:7-11), for it's the taproot of genuine repentance, and the salvation of all sinners rests with it (John 6:44,45). When we speak of conviction, we are talking about the Spirit's influence in the hearts of unbelievers that enables them--apart from regeneration--to see, feel, and understand their need of Christ.

Conviction is not regeneration, as some would hold. Nor is it always efficacious, as some would wish (Gen. 4:6,7; Mt. 22:3; 23:37; John 5:38-40; Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 6:1; Gal. 2:21; Heb. 4:6; 10:29; 12:15). Rather, conviction is just that, conviction--the work of the Spirit in the hearts of dead sinners (Eph. 2:1) that convinces them of their unbelief and need of Christ and enbles them to embrace the gospel. That's conviction. And apart from it, "No man can come to [Christ]" (John 6:44).

To Repent Or Not To Repent - Part III

2007-04-08T09:56:00.000-05:00

Here is part three of the series To Repent Or Not to Repent - Part III

If you want to skip ahead to the other parts of this series, feel free.

He Has Risen!

2007-04-08T09:27:00.000-05:00

Happy Resurrection Day!

Matthew 28:1-20

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Calvinists Say They Believe In Choice

2007-04-07T06:39:00.001-05:00

Quote from a Calvinist:

"I see every person as having a choice and leave the election part of it to God."

While I respect my Calvinist friend's statement I must reject the logic within that statement.

Calvinists believe that sinners have a choice when it comes to responding to the gospel but that sinners are incapable of responding in a positive manner causing them to always choose sin rather than salvation. Therefore, God elects (or chooses) some to salvation while leaving others to die in their sins.

Is that really a choice? I say, No. For to have a choice one must truly be able to respond to the gospel in either direction: positively or negatively.

I agree with my good Calvinist friend(s) that man does have a choice in the matter of salvation and that God only elects some to salvation. I don't, however, agree with their premise that God elects unconditionally (i.e., for reasons only God Himself knows) or that man will always choose sin over salvation. God elects or chooses for salvation those who will put their faith/belief in Him through Christ Jesus. (John 1:12-13; 3:15)

The Calvinist's whole system of soteriology (TULIP) is predicated upon man's so-called inability to respond to the gospel because man is "dead in trespasses and sin," man is a "slave to sin" and man is "under the rule of Satan." While these conditions plaguing mankind are true they do not render him incapable of responding to the gospel because God has graced us with that ability and He is drawing mankind to Himself.

This death that Paul speaks of is a spiritual death. (Romans 5:12) The only action mankind is rendered incapable of is a relationship with God. God says that those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. (John 4:24) Man cannot truly worship God unless his spirit is made alive through Christ. (John 3:3)

Man's heart (i.e., intellect/mind, will and emotions) is not dead and is not incapable of understanding his need for a Savior. That is why we have the law. The law was never meant to save mankind, rather it was meant to point man to his need of a Savior (Jesus/God come in the flesh) by showing man he was guilty of sin and destined to hell for breaking God's law. If man breaks even one law he is guilty of breaking all the law. (James 2:10) Jesus paid the penalty for man's sin. (I John 2:2) The gospel is offered to all of mankind and man must accept that offer of salvation by placing his faith/belief in Christ Jesus. That is not to say that man's heart will always be receptive to the gospel. We know that pride and the love of self are ultimately the cause of a man's heart becoming hardened toward God (along with other complex factors), but only God knows how a man's heart becomes SO hardened that he will not receive the gospel. (God also hardens a man's heart, but man first hardens his own heart.)

I agree with my Calvinist friends that man does not have the power in and of himself to be freed from Satan and sin. That power can only come from God through Jesus once man places his faith/belief in Jesus. (John 1:12)

Words and phrases in the bible like: believe, trust, seek, repent, reason, persuade(d), convince(d), study, search, will not, would not, whosoever (will), anyone, etc., not only imply ability, but they also refute the idea of 100% irresistiblity and the idea that man cannot respond positively to the gospel.

Also, scriptures like the one below show me that a man dead in his sins is capable of responding to the gospel. I don't believe God would try to persuade men who are dead in their sin to receive the gospel if they were incapable of doing so. Surely this attempt at persuasion isn't pure rhetoric? (The entire bible is full of such accounts of persuasion.)

John 10:37-39 "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."

If it is true that "dead" means "incapable," a person who's spirit has been made to come to life by Christ would be "incapable" of committing sin since he is now "dead to sin." (Romans 6:2, 11-14; Colossians 3:3; I Peter 2:24) And we know that Christians are quite capable of sinning.

As an aside: I have to wonder if the word "elect" is what trips up some to believe that it means anything other than "chosen." The words "chosen" and "elect" are synonymous just as Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are one and the same. Who does God choose (elect) for salvation? Those who believe.

To Repent or Not To Repent Part II

2007-04-07T06:29:00.000-05:00

Here is Part II of this series.

If you want to skip ahead to the other parts of this series, feel free.

To Repent Or Not To Repent That is the Question Part I

2007-04-06T07:52:00.000-05:00

Avis Commercial

2007-04-06T07:44:00.000-05:00

I like this one.

PF Chang's

2007-04-01T22:39:00.000-05:00

My husband took this picture (click to view a larger image) on one of our outings to PF Chang's. My favorite dish at PF Chang's is the Kung Pao Chicken. Do any of you have a PF Chang's in your area? What are some of your favorite restaurants?

Rudy's Last Chance To Save America

2007-03-31T20:30:00.000-05:00

Mary Did You Know?

2007-03-29T22:16:00.000-05:00

Mary Did You Know?
By Mark Lowry

Mary did you know that your baby boy will one day walk on water
Mary did you know that your baby boy will save our sons and daughters
Did you know that your baby boy has come to make you new
This child that you delivered will soon deliver you

Mary did you know that your baby boy will give sight to a blind man
Mary did you know that your baby boy will calm a storm with his hand
Did you know that your baby boy has walked where angels trod
When you kiss your little baby you’ve kissed the face of God

The blind will see the deaf will hear and the dead will live again
The lame will leap the dumb will speak the praises of the Lamb

Mary did you know that your baby boy is Lord of all creation
Mary did you know that your baby boy will one day rule the nations
Did you know that your baby boy is heaven’s perfect Lamb
This sleeping child you’re holding is the great I AM

This is one of my all time favorite songs.

Another Oldie But Goodie

2007-03-26T14:49:00.000-05:00

Did God Create Evil? & Thoughts on Calvinism

2007-03-21T15:48:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Rose for the head's up on this excellent blog post on Dr. McArthur's Theodicy.

I think John R.'s comments on Calvinism are excellent. And, I certainly understand his concern with the idea that God created evil, but I do believe He did. God is the only one who can create, right? Though, I do not believe God is the cause of evil. I believe the cause lies within the freewill and natural causes of God's creation.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

I've heard other theologians try to explain how evil came about and that it is merely the opposite of obedience to God. It is the negative of the positive. But that just doesn't ring true to me.

Could I be wrong?

What Does It Mean To Be Dead?

2007-03-21T15:32:00.000-05:00

Here is what I think to be a most excellent exposition on the biblical term "dead in sin".

Geico Caveman Commercials: Love 'Em or Hate 'Em?

2007-03-02T23:36:00.001-06:00

I love these Geico commercials. The guys who play the cavemen are great at expressing their feelings with just a look, an inflection and body language. It's been fun to learn these characters' personalities with each "episode." This series is simply brilliant. I think the people who hate these commercials simply do not understand them.

These are my favorites so far. For some reason I can't get the parameters to copy so here are the links.

The Apology

The Airport

The Party

One of My All Time Favorite Commercials

2007-03-01T15:14:00.000-06:00

Nissan Commercial with Van Halen's You Really Got Me.

It's a little grainy, but it'll do. :-)

Van Halen

You Really Got Me

Memory Lane

2007-02-28T20:38:00.000-06:00

Joan Jett

I Love Rock N Roll

Crimson And Clover

I never liked this song until Joan sang it.

Genesis - ABACAB

2007-02-26T07:17:00.000-06:00

If you prefer a more mellow Genesis, see Leo's video A Trick of the Tail.

Liver And Onions

2007-02-18T23:55:00.000-06:00

Thanks to Rose for the heads-up on this blog: Liver and Onions. I haven't read it all, but from what I've read so far his posts on Calvinism are spot on!

New Online Boutique

2007-02-11T21:35:00.000-06:00

My cousin has opened an online boutique. Check out her store here:

Firefly Boutique

Paternity of Sally Hemings' Children: You Decide

2006-11-06T16:55:00.000-06:00

Unfortunately, we will never know the truth as to whether or not Thomas Jefferson sired the children of Sally Hemings until the body of Thomas Jefferson is exhumed and his DNA is extracted and tested against those who claim to be descendants of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson.

I tend to believe that Thomas Jefferson probably did not father any of Sally Hemings' children because there are plausible explanations for the evidence we see that "seem" to point toward Thomas as the father and because he was so dead-set against miscegenation. I realize that a strong belief in something does not guarantee one will always adhere to that belief, but most people do adhere to what they strongly believe.

These two sites weigh the evidence and come to different conclusions. You decide for yourself.

Thomas Jefferson Is Probably Not The Father of Sally Hemings' Children

Thomas Jefferson Probably IS The Father of Sally Hemings' Children

One thing I have learned about the historians who are of a liberal mind-set is that they WILL edit some of the correspondence to suit their purposes and pass it on to the unassuming public. They did it to malign the character of George Washington and they've done it with Thomas Jefferson in trying to prove that he had easy and secret access to Sally Hemings. This example comes from Annette Gordon-Reed's book Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. She changed the wording in an 1858 letter written by Thomas Jefferson's granddaugher, Ellen Randolph Coolidge, to her husband denying the possiblity of a Jefferson-Hemings relationship.

Bryan Craig, research librarian at the Jefferson Library, at Monticello, Jefferson’s estate, faxed this reporter a photocopy of the original Coolidge letter.

The letter actually said, "His [Jefferson’s] apartments had no private entrance not perfectly accessible and visible to all the household. No female domestic ever entered his chambers except at hours when he was known not to be there and none could have entered without being exposed to the public gaze."

In Prof. Gordon-Reed’s hands, the second sentence changed, as if by magic, to "No female domestic ever entered his chambers except at hours when he was known not to be in the public gaze."

Gordon-Reed’s changes turned the letter’s meaning on its head, supporting claims that Jefferson could have had secret trysts with Hemings. Either Gordon-Reed committed one of the most dramatic copying errors in the annals of academia, or one of the most egregious acts of academic fraud of the past generation.

Ironically, it was Prof. Gordon-Reed, who politely, promptly, directed me to the Jefferson Library, where I obtained a copy of the original Coolidge letter. After I e-mailed her three times about the discrepancy, Prof. Gordon-Reed finally responded, “As to the discrepancy, there was an error in transcription in my book. It was corrected for future printings.”

In January, 2000, a panel of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF, since renamed the Thomas Jefferson Foundation), which owns Jefferson’s Monticello home, released its Monticello report claiming there was a “strong likelihood” that Jefferson had fathered ALL of Hemings’ children.

The “scholars” who prepared the tendentious, 2000 Monticello report, led by Prof. Gordon-Reed’s reported friends, Dianne Swann-Wright and Lucia Stanton, could not be bothered to study the original Coolidge letter, and instead cited the false version published in Gordon-Reed’s book. Likewise, in 2000, Boston PBS station, WGBH, presented a “documentary,” Jefferson’s Blood, which perpetuated the hoax. The Monticello Report still cites the altered Coolidge letter (on p. 6, under "Primary Sources", and the PBS/WGBH web site for Jefferson’s Blood still has the phony version posted, in its entirety,, three years after it was proven to be false, a practice typical of the Jefferson-Hemings hoax industry as a whole.

Source

It is true that it is still on the PBS website. I have read it for myself.

I do realize that there is a possiblity that Thomas Jefferson is the father of Sally Hemings' children, but at this point it is not a proven fact and there are too many plausible explanations for the evidence at hand. I would be very disappointed to learn that Thomas Jefferson did indeed father Sally Hemings' children.

Thomas Jefferson & Sally Hemings

2006-11-04T14:49:00.000-06:00

Leo and I have had a brief discussion on slavery in America in a so-called "Christian Nation". Leo mentioned the hypocricy of Thomas Jefferson with regard to slavery which brought up the subject of Sally Hemings. I think that many people are still unaware that the DNA testing which supposedly proved that Thomas Jefferson fathered Hemings' children has been discredited. What the DNA has proved is that Hemings' children were related to "a" Jefferson, but not necessarily Thomas Jefferson. I decided to bring my comments here as a blogpost.

Dave Barton has an excellent article outlining the whole sordid affair. It's too sad that in recent times Jefferson has been maligned and his reputation ruined by those whose goal it is to paint our founders as bigoted monsters who deserve no respect and whose ideals are passe. (These rumors originated in Jefferson's day by a journalist who had a vendetta against him. Barton goes into great detail in his article.) Some have also spread malicious and untrue gossip about President George Washington.

Here are a couple of excerpts from Barton's article. I think you will find the entire article well worth the read.

"Herbert Barger, the Jefferson family historian and genealogist who assisted in the original DNA study for Nature (and who strenuously objected to the conclusions published in the original story) explained:
"My study indicates to me that Thomas Jefferson was not the father of Eston or any other Hemings child. The study indicates that Randolph [Thomas' younger brother] is possibly the father of Eston and the others. Randolph, named for his maternal Randolph family, was a widower and between wives when, shortly after his wife's death, Sally became pregnant with her first child. . . . She continued having children until 1808 when Eston was born. Randolph Jefferson would marry his second wife the next year, 1809. . . . [Significantly, t]hree of Sally Hemings' children, Harriet, Beverly and Eston (the latter two not common names), were given names of the Randolph family." (emphasis in original)

[snip]

The Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission released a 565 page report on the Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings controversy. The Executive Summary of that report states:

"The question of whether Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more children by his slave Sally Hemings is an issue about which honorable people can and do disagree. After a careful review of all of the evidence, the commission agrees unanimously that the allegation is by no means proven; and we find it regrettable that public confusion about the 1998 DNA testing and other evidence has misled many people. With the exception of one member, whose views are set forth both below and in his more detailed appended dissent, our individual conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge to a conviction that it is almost certainly false."

From what I've read, I tend to agree with Herbert Barger. He's done a most exellent job of putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I think the Hemings' children were probably fathered by a Jefferson, but not Thomas Jefferson. I agree wholeheartedly with the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission that there is no conclusive evidence that has proven Thomas Jefferson to be the father of Hemings' children. As Barton's article states, the research wasn't even thorough.

My husband has read many of Jefferson's writings. He and I have discussed the slavery issue with regard to Jefferson's view. He said that Jefferson was against slavery, but he was also concerned about the economical effects that abolition would cause. He feared economic collapse and the future of America's existence as its own country. I'm sure there were other factors, but I can't remember them all because this was years ago that we discussed it.

What really boggles the mind is the fact that there are still some who claim Jesus as Saviour and Lord that would allow slavery today.

World's Shortest Books

2006-09-16T00:18:00.000-05:00

FRENCH WAR HEROES
by Jacques Chirac

THINGS I LOVE ABOUT MY COUNTRY
by Jane Fonda & Cindy Sheehan
Illustrated by Michael Moore

MY BEAUTY SECRETS
by Janet Reno & Whoopi Goldberg

ALL THE WOMEN I HAVE LOVED BEFORE
by Barney Frank (D-Mass) & Boy George

MY CHRISTIAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS
&
HOW I HELPED AFTER KATRINA
by Rev Jesse Jackson & Rev Al Sharpton

THINGS I LOVE ABOUT BILL
by Hillary Clinton

THINGS I LOVE ABOUT HILLARY
By Bill Clinton

MY LITTLE BOOK OF PERSONAL HYGIENE
by Osama Bin Laden

THINGS I CANNOT AFFORD
by Bill Gates

THINGS I WOULD NOT DO FOR MONEY
by Dennis Rodman

THINGS I KNOW TO BE TRUE
by Al Gore & John Kerry

A COLLECTION of MOTIVATIONAL SPEECHES
by Dr. J. Kevorkian

ALL THE MEN I HAVE LOVED BEFORE
by Ellen de Generes & Rosie O'Donnell

THE GUIDE TO DATING ETIQUETTE
by Mike Tyson

DELICIOUS SPOTTED OWL RECIPES
by PETA

THE AMISH PHONE DIRECTORY

MY PLAN TO FIND THE REAL KILLERS
by O.J. Simpson

HOW TO DRINK & DRIVE OVER BRIDGES
by Ted Kennedy

MY BOOK OF MORALS
by Bill Clinton
with introduction
by The Rev. Jesse Jackson

BRITISH DENTISTRY

Benny Fynn Ministries

2006-09-04T11:00:00.000-05:00

Coming Soon To Faith Chapel!
My Pentecostal Pup!

Receive Your Healing NOW!

Benny Fynn Ministries

"Paws and know that He is Lord!"
Psalm 46:10
(New Chihuahua Translation)

Casting Out Demons!

A New Creature in Christ!

Background: We have three dogs (Chihuahuas) named Bosco, Scout and Fynn. Fynn had the habit of pawing her non-blood "siblings." It looked to us like Fynn was praying when she put her paws on their heads and Hubby was able to capture it on film. One day hubby presented me with a bookmark he had created which I now share with you all. I hope you enjoy it as much as I still do. :-)

Disclaimer: I do not follow or agree with the ministries of Benny Hinn; nor do I follow any "Word of Faith" doctrine. (Though I am not a cessationist.) This is simply a parody created by my husband.

Eye On The Sky

2006-09-01T06:42:00.000-05:00

My good friend Eye is posting on eschatology. Should be an interesting discussion what with so many differing views on the subject.

Eye On The Sky.

Cruel Shoes

2006-08-22T12:03:00.001-05:00

By Steve Martin

Anna knew she had to have some new shoes today, and Carlo had helped her try on every pair in the store. Carlo spoke wearily, "Well, that's every pair of shoes in the place."

"Oh, you must have one more pair..."

"No, not one more pair... Well, we have the cruel shoes, but no one would want..."

Anna interrupted, "Oh yes, let me see the cruel shoes!"

Carlo looked incredulous. "No Anna, you don't understand, you see the cruel shoes are..."

"Get them!"

Carlo disappeared into the back room for a moment, then returned with an ordinary shoe box. He opened the lid and removed a hideous pair of black and white pumps. But these were not an ordinary pair of black and white pumps; both were left feet, one had a right angle turn with separate compartments that pointed the toes in impossible directions. The other shoe was six inches long and was curved inward like a rocking chair with a vise and razor blades to hold the foot in place.

Carlo spoke hesitantly, "... Now you see why... they're not fit for humans..."

"Put them on me."

"But..."

"Put them on me!"

Carlo knew all arguments were useless. He knelt down before her and forced the feet into the shoes.

The screams were incredible.

Anna crawled over to the mirror and held her bloody feet up where she could see.

"I like them."

She paid Carlo and crawled out of the store into the street.

Later that day, Carlo was overheard saying to a new customer, "Well, that's every shoe in the place. Unless, of course, you'd like to try the cruel shoes."

Obeying And Following The Law

2006-08-15T09:51:00.001-05:00

Mike, I apologize for taking so long to respond. I was behind with my posting at Eye's place and did not want to fall farther behind.

Psalms 19:7-11 "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward."

Mike: "But God does NOT expect us to follow the Old Testament law as a way of life, whether the spirit of the law or whatever. That thinking stems from reformed theology."

Just so you know, I did not know anything about reformed theology until about two and a half years ago, and have only really studied it in the past year. I've always believed that we're still to follow the law because Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law and not to destroy it.

What I mean by follow the Law is that we're to obey God's commands. We're not to murder, steal, commit adultery, covet, etc. Right? If we do those things, that is sin. Right? Else, where does sin come in if there is no law?

If our dog bites our neighbor, we're to make restitution. Right? If we destroy someone's property (whether innocently or purposely), we're to make restitution. Right?

Do you really think that just because we're Christians that we're exempt from the Law? Do we not still bear the consequences of our sin? Not that we’ll go to Hell, but that we will reap what we have sown.

Like I said before, if we love God and love our neighbor like we should we are following the Law. Those are Jesus' words, not mine. :-) (Matthew 22:37-40)

Now, that is not to say that just because our outward appearance is good that our inward man is good, because we must be sure that we are clean on the inside as well. And we do this by staying in God's word, staying in prayer and doing the work of the Lord.

If Jesus were here today, ruling and reigning, we would be living under HIS Law. Murderers, rebellious teens, child molesters, rapists, adulterers, etc. would be put to death. In other words, capital offenses during the time the Mosaic Law was instituted would still be capital offenses if Jesus were physically here today. How could it not be? Is not the God of the OT the same God as the NT? (John 1:1, 14) Didn’t God say that He changes not? (Malachi 3:6)

Please do not get me wrong; following the law does not save or justify us.

Matthew 5:17-19 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (emphasis added)

Mike: "You [Dawn] also said, "If the law of God is no longer in effect, then we are lawless and I don't believe God expects us to be lawless."

This is Paul's conundrum in Romans 7-8, where he talks about the law as a way of life and the better life God has provided. He says, we are "dead to the law", "that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." (Emph. mine) [Romans 7:4,6]

Paul’s conundrum was that the Jews were still wanting to live by the letter of the Law. They were teaching that one must still be circumcised, that they were still not to eat certain meats and they were to continue to observe the ceremonial rites. So Paul was trying to explain that Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection had done away with physical circumcision and that the heart was now circumcised by the law of God being written on our hearts. And that the meat was always good and was simply an example of what clean and unclean meant (i.e., walking in the Spirit vs. fulfilling the lusts of the flesh). He was not saying that we are not held accountable to obey God’s moral and civil law.

We are no longer expected to keep the ceremonial parts of the law because Jesus was the fulfilment of it and HE kept the whole Law perfectly. Therefore, we are dead to the law in that sense. We died with Christ and are resurrected in newness of Spirit. We are made righteous through HIS keeping of the Law. The laws are now written in our hearts. We are dead to it, but it is not dead to us.

Hebrews 8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:"
Romans 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." (emphasis added)
Romans 7:13 "Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (emphasis added)

We no longer have to go through ceremonial sacrifices, etc. We now can go boldly to the throne and worship the Father and ask forgiveness of sins in spirit and in truth. We now walk in Spirit and we produce spiritual fruit (i.e., love, patience, meekness, kindness, etc.) which is a fulfilling of the law.

Mike: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh...that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh [by the law] but according to the Spirit [by faith]." [Romans 8:4-5]

The problem is not with the law. The law is holy and perfect. The problem is with our flesh. The law could not free us from sin and the wages of sin, which is death. The law could not give us a new nature. That is why God came to earth in the flesh as Jesus. (Romans 8:2)

Romans 7:12 "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

Romans 8:4-5 is saying that those of us who are walking in the Spirit (i.e., born again), and not in the flesh (still under the curse of the law), are walking in righteousness fulfilling the law through Jesus Christ.

Mike: "Being outside the jurisdiction of the Old Testament law does not mean that we are lawless, for Christ said, "A new command I give to you, that you love one another." (As a side, Why is this a new command if we are still under the Old Testament law?)" [John 13:34]

This is not a new commandment.

Leviticus 19:18 "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."

Jesus was refreshing the Old Testament commandment that had been mostly forgotten and completely modified by the Pharisees as seen in Matthew 5:43.

Matthew 5:43 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy." (emphasis added)

God never said that we were to hate our enemies.

Here is the word "new" in the greek:

2537. kainos

of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness; while 3501 is properly so with respect to age:--new.

3501. neos

including the comparative neoteros neh-o'-ter-os; a primary word; "new", i.e. (of persons) youthful, or (of things) fresh; figuratively, regenerate:--new, young.

Mike: "You [Dawn] then said, "In fact, it is the law of God that we must follow." And again, I say that this thinking only comes from reformed theology, you will not find it in the words of Paul or post-crucifixion Jesus. Not the Old Testament law."

Again, what constitutes sin in our lives? Should we be allowed to get away with murder? What about adultery? Are Christians exempt from sin and the consequences of sin? Are we not still sinners, but saved by grace?

I’ve only been exposed to the TULIP portion of reformed theology and sought that out on my own.

What do you think Paul means when he speaks of the law of the Spirit of life through Christ Jesus?
What did Paul mean when He stated that the laws are written on our hearts?
Why did Paul say that the law is holy, just and good?
What did Paul mean when he said that he delighted in the law of God after the inward man?
Why did Paul say that with the mind I myself serve the law of God?
What did Paul mean when he said that if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live?
What does Paul mean when He says to walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfil the lusts of the flesh?

So, once Jesus died we don’t have to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and love our neighbor as ourselves of which hang all the law and the prophets?

Mike: "You [Dawn] then said, "Jesus came to fulfill the law, not do away with it."But don't you see the beauty of it? By fulfilling the law, He did away with it." [Romans 10:4?]

I see the beauty in that Jesus fulfilled and established the law and in doing so we became righteous through Him. However, that does not negate obedience to the law. Like I said, we are not justified by it, but when we walk in the Spirit we obey the law. When we submit to God, we are submitting to His law. I’m not talking in a Pharisaical sense; I’m talking in a pure heart toward God sense and in a loving the law and seeing its beauty and righteousness and goodness sense.

Jesus did NOT do away with the law. Like He said, His fulfilling it did not destroy it. Rather, His fulfilling of it was to our end righteousness because we could never do it for ourselves.

Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

What does this scripture mean to you, Mike?

Mike: "What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made..." [Galatians 3:19]

"Before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law...Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." [Galatians 3:25]

"As always, the just shall live by faith." [Galatians 3:11]

Pointing us toward the Savior is not the ONLY purpose the law serves.

I agree, we are saved by faith. The law has done its job in that it pointed us toward our need for a Savior. It no longer condemns us, but it is still eternal. We are not free from the law or its consequences, but we are free from its curse which is eternal death. The ceremonial laws are done away with, but not the moral and civil laws.

Mike: "Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?" [Galatians 3:3]

"Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" [Galatians 3:5]

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone [you and me] who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them....the just shall live by faith. Yet the law is not of faith, but the man who does them shall live by them." [Galatians 3:10-11]

"...the strength of sin is the law." [I Corinthians 15:56]

Again, I’m not saying that we are made righteous through following the law. When we walk in the Spirit, then we ARE following the law. I’m not talking legalism here, either. The problem here as stated in Galatians was that they were still trying to teach the law as a way of righteousness. I.e., some were still requiring circumcision, the observance of days, months, times and years, forbidding fellowship and eating with the Gentiles and certain foods, etc. So Paul was simply setting them straight that it is by faith that we are saved and not observing the rites of the law. Paul is not saying that we don’t obey the moral and civil law of the Lord.

If we’re not to follow/obey the law, then how do we know when we are in sin? Or do you think Christians do not sin in the eyes of God?

Should we rid our societies of laws?

Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist Discussion Redux

2006-07-25T13:11:00.000-05:00

If you're not tired of the whole Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist topic, Eye has continued the discussion over at his blog.

Are You An Extreme Calvinist?

Unconditional Election and Stargates

Limited Atonement--Continuation of Extreme Calvinism Articles

Enjoy!

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

2006-06-27T20:39:00.000-05:00

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

When I read this scripture, it seems pretty clear to me that once a couple divorces and one or the other or both remarry other people then they are not free to marry one another again for any reason. Is this scripture really that cut and dried, or is there more to it than meets the eye and the couple ARE free to marry each other again?

What say some of you? Why do you think that the Lord does not want the couple to remarry? Why is this an abomination?

Some Interesting Reads & Discussions

2006-05-16T00:39:00.000-05:00

Rose, over at Rose's Reasonings, has some excellent (and civil) discussions going on about the Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist controversy. She is focusing in on the "faith" aspect of salvation. It is a long discussion, but well worth the read.

Those discussions can be found at the following links:

What's Faith? Part 1

What Is Faith? Part 2 Is Faith A Gift?

What Is Faith? Part 3

What Is Faith? Part 4

What Is Faith? Part 5

Eye has posted a rather revealing article by an ex-Calvinist.

Leo has an interesting post on contraception which I haven't had a chance to comment on yet, but hope to do so soon.

Thanks guys for some great reads and discussion!

Law? Grace? Or Both?

2006-04-20T10:41:00.007-05:00

I often hear some Christians make the statement that we are under grace meaning that we are no longer under the law and that we are not to enforce the death penalty, not even for murder. Not everyone believes the same thing on these issues. Some believe that, in the eyes of God, the death penalty is a just punishment for murder, but death is too severe a penalty for those who commit “lesser” sins/crimes such as sodomy, adultery, pedophilia, fornication, rebellion against parents, etc., sins/crimes that at one time carried with them the death penalty.

What I don’t understand is when God supposedly changed his stance on the punishment of such sins/crimes. Isn’t the God of the New Testament the same God as the Old Testament? Are these particular sins/crimes any less heinous than they were in OT times? Do they not still cause the same hurt and damage as in ancient times? Where in the scripture does Jesus call for a moratorium on the death penalty or the law in general? When did the sins/crimes which were once worthy of the death penalty become unworthy?

Jesus told us that he came to fulfil the law, not destroy it. (Matthew 5:17) He also said that we were to love the Lord with all our heart, soul and mind and to love our neighbor as ourselves. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40) So we see that we are still expected to obey the laws of God.

Matthew 5:19-20 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

The laws are for our protection spiritually, physically, individually and societally. Instead of our oxen we must make sure our cars are safe and not harmful to ourselves and others. The OT had safety codes for building, as we do today. It had “plumbing”ordinances, as we do today, etc., etc. Though our technology has changed, we still obey the spirit of the law.

I’m not saying that we are to be legalistic or that we are still under the curse of the law. Please do not misunderstand. I’m simply saying that while we ARE under grace, that grace does not negate God’s law. There has always been grace with God. Look at how He handled Adam and Eve's sins. He allowed them to live for a good long time instead of killing them on the spot. Look at how longsuffering He was toward mankind throughout history. He warned and warned and warned for hundreds of years before He passed judgment. Look at how longsuffering He continues to be with us today: both sinner and saint.

The difference in the grace that we’re under today is that Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice. God has made an easier way of salvation: no more blood sacrifice! We can now come boldly to the throne of grace through Jesus. WE are now priests and sons.

Some people misunderstand what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5. The Pharisees had made their own laws and perverted the law of God. Jesus was showing that our very actions are all a matter of the heart, as they always have been. If we love our neighbor, we won’t want to kill him. If we hate our neighbor, we’re killing him in our hearts, even if we don’t act out on that hatred. Both are sin. He was teaching that just because we refrain from killing someone doesn’t mean that our hearts are right with God. He was not saying that we do away with the death penalty.

Also, He was not saying that the law of an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth had been negated, rather he was saying that we are not to take the law into our own hands; we are to let the law/authorities handle it. If someone slaps us on the cheek, we're to walk away, if we're able, and refrain from retaliation (turn the other cheek). If we, for some reason, cannot get away from a person and that person continues to attack us, then by all means we are allowed to defend ourselves, but we're to keep the peace as much as we are able. If someone destroys our property, we are not to retaliate and destroy their property. We are to turn the other cheek, contact the authorities and let them handle it through the law. God has ordained our earthly governments to award restitution when necessary or carry out punishment for those who disobey the law.

Romans 13:1-7 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

I often hear that the law of God was only for the Israelites. I disagree with that assessment, though I’ve not really heard an in depth explanation of that assessment. The only thing I’ve heard was that since Israel was a new nation that God had to be strict and nip sin/crime in the bud. Why would it be any different for the rest of the world? Did not God give Adam and Noah some system of law to pass down to their posterity, essentially non-Israelites? Isn’t the law our schoolmaster showing us that we are indeed sinners (Jew AND Gentile); thus, the need for a Savior? Are not sinners to ultimately be judged by the law of God? I think the law is for everyone, but it was the Israelites that recorded the law for all posterity. The law is written on all of our hearts. (The entire Bible is written to everyone, but especially to the Christian.) Of course the Christian community is more apt to obey the laws of God, though secular societies still follow God's law somewhat.

If Jesus were here ruling and reigning, He would certainly be enforcing His law and He will when He returns. Would one think that Jesus was unjust in ruling with a rod of iron by enforcing His law and meting out the just punishments?

Revelation 19:11-17 “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;”

You may say, “Well, that is Jesus and He has that authority.” True, but I believe that if an earthly government decides to follow the Lord, then He is obligated to follow the law of God as given in the Holy Bible. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where God said that nations were not allowed to follow the law of God unless it was the nation of Israel.

Though I disagree with our founders on some things concerning the law (mainly that they didn't follow the law of God implicitly), I think they at least had good intentions. Many of the things that are legal now were not legal in their day (e.g., sodomy, abortion, adultery, divorce (or at least not easily obtained), pornography (even if it were hand drawn), the promotion of promiscuity, blasphemy, cohabitation, etc). Little by little these laws have been changed because they went against the sensibilities of some (live and let live and/or capital punishment is uncivilized), and the proclivities of others. This type of pity has been a detriment to our society. God has told us not to pity. For when we pity, it leads to leniency which leads to tolerance which leads to acceptance which leads to an indecent and broken society. The least we could have done was to continue to keep these actions illegal and enforce the law.

Deuteronomy 19:21 “And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

I also believe that promiscuity, premarital sex, women who have babies out of wedlock, homosexuality, etc. should be shameful as it once was not too terribly long ago. Even the church no longer deems these acts as shameful. What a travesty! (I'm not saying we're to be judgmental or condemning, so please do not get me wrong.) I truly believe that if it were a shame to engage in this type of behavior that it would deter most people from participating; or, at the very least, they would not be open about their immoral practices.

On a different blogpost my good friend Leo asks, “One question, ok two. Since the USA is not a theocracy, who would carry out the death penalty for sins such as for the sins of sodomy, adultery, rebellion against parents, etc. If such people repent should the powers that be still execute them? John 8:1-11 for the example of a repentant sinner.”

The government would carry out the death penalty for the sins you’ve named just as they carry out the death penalty for murder today. Though, I must remind you that if there is no confession of the crime, there must be two or more witnesses in order to mete out the death penalty. I believe forensic evidence can be considered a witness if there are no eye witnesses.

Yes, a person who has been duly convicted of a capital crime should still be executed even if they have repented. We see this with the thief on the cross. When our government used to mete out capital punishment swiftly and quickly they always gave the prisoner time to get right with God. I think that if our government executed prisoners quickly, their punishment would be much more of a deterrent. I think that it wouldn’t take too many executions of rebellious teens/young adults, adulterers, sodomites, etc. before people would begin to think twice before they committed a crime punishable by death.

As for the John 8:1-11 account of the adulteress, I have never seen that scripture as a moratorium on the death penalty. My bible teacher explains this beautifully, I think. I will cut and paste his exegesis of these verses of scripture. It is rather lengthy, but WELL worth the read. (All emphasis in original)

The Pericope de Adultera

Comment: If the woman were caught in the very act, where was the
man? God required that both should be stoned (Lev.20:10; Deu.22:22-24). Jesus knew the entire matter was a set up for the purpose of placing Him on the horns of a dilemma. If He said stone her according to the Law of the O.T., He would be in trouble with the Roman authorities. If He said to release her from the demand of the Law, the people would reject His claims as Messiah for Messiah would never go against the Word of God.

One reason that so many religious leaders and laymen oppose the inclusion of these verses, called the pericope de adultera in theologicalscholastic circles ("pericope" is a short selection from a book), is due to their lack of understanding it and thus an inability to properly exegete the story. The forgiveness which Christ bestowed upon the adulteress is contrary to the conviction of many that the punishment for adultery should be very severe. For most, the solution is to merely conclude that Jesus' coming to earth has somehow nullified the Laws of God; that God no longer punishes sin but has now "become" a God of mercy, love and compassion. The story seems to offer too many inexplicable contradictory problems for most, and since they cannot understand the verses – they raise their vote to exclude them from the Scriptures. It requires great humility to admit lack of insight. Such men rarely will humble their intellect before God, constantly labeling paradoxes contained within the covers of the Bible as "unfortunate scribal errors" simply because their wisdom has failed to unravel the paradox.

Far better to confess lack of scholarship, understanding or lack of revelation than to insist, as most do, that the short-coming must be with the Scriptures themselves (Man's pride and ego must be served at all cost!). Many of us are self deceived, imagining that we "believe" the Word of God. The Lord has deliberately written as He has to bring us to the point of honesty. When we are confronted with seemingly contradictory places in Scripture, what is our response? The response reveals the actual condition of the heart and ego. Do we now still believe or do we place our intellects above the Word, deciding that because we could not solve the apparent discrepancy – the Scripture must contain error.

Although not claiming inerrant insight into all such matters, we do not allow any errors within the Holy Writ – scribal or otherwise. We confess ignorance, even hardness of heart, in areas that result in our lack of revelation from above. We cannot explain all paradoxical parts of Scripture, but in calm assurance we rest in faith that the solutions are present within the pages of Scripture itself. No outside information need be brought to bear on the problem to "add light" to the Word. How does one add light to blinding revelation?

THE "PERICOPE" EXPLAINED

As to the story before us, we find Jesus conducting a "Bible study" at the Temple area. Suddenly the lesson is interrupted by a commotion as the scribes and Pharisees cast before Jesus and the "Church" a terrified believer, possibly clutching ashamedly at a bed sheet in an attempt to clothe herself and hide her humiliation. These religious leaders care nothing for her life or her shame. For them she is but the means, the bait for the trap with which they seek to hopelessly ensnare our Lord. These men are not "seekers of truth" as they pretend. Their motive is to secure the death of their antagonist, and if this woman must die also in securing that end, so be it.

When Jesus saw that the equally guilty man was not present, He knew their motive. Further, He knew the man must be of some importance, influential in the community or else the man would also now be before Him. Moreover it is quite possible that the man was himself one of the leaders – having deliberately seduced the woman thereby "sacrificing himself" to commit the act as part of a conspiracy for the very purpose of entrapping Jesus. "But what sayest thou?" that they might have something with which to accuse Him, they inquired. Thus, the real issue before us is actually that of "authority" (cp. verse 36!).

It is most important that the reader realize that Jesus did not set aside the Laws of God or make an exception with this woman as though God had changed His mind or had "softened" from the Old Testament to the New Testament – that God was a God of wrath in the Old but had somehow "evolved" into a God of love, grace, and compassion in the New. God loved and had compassion on the exposed adulterers all throughout the Old Testament. He certainly did not love or feel more compassion for her than any before her. It was always the sin itself that He hated, but His holy nature and justice then as now, called for righteous judgment and punishment. God never changes (Mal.3:6).

First, this was still the time of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant could not come into effect until the required blood of the Covenant was shed. But the reader must come to see that Jesus perfectly upheld the demand of the Law – Jesus actually told these religious unbelievers to stone her (verse 7)! He told them to obey the Law – but dealt with their consciences, bathed in murder as they were, by the prefacing remark "He that is without sin among you" let him cast the first stone. The idea behind this stipulation was twofold. First, Jesus caught them unawares in that rather than having the "Bible study group" carry out the stoning, Jesus called on the unregenerate scribes and Pharisees to perform the deed. Thus if they so did, it would be they whom the Roman authorities would come against and not Jesus. They would have fallen into the pit that they themselves had dug (Pro.26:27). The Romans had taken the power of life and death away from the conquered Jews (Joh.18:31), and Roman law did not condemn an adulteress to be put to death.

In the second place, Jesus is challenging them to merely obey the law to which they so devotedly cleave. Jesus is calling on the required two or three eye witnesses (Deu.17:6-7) to now step forward. If they are credible witnesses, they must now identify themselves and also make known the identity of the man. If they will not identify the man they will be disobeying the law and thus will incur guilt. The man having been summoned, the stoning could continue but the first stones must be cast by these same men.

The qualifying "without sin" in Scriptural context with regard to witnesses, does not mean "moral perfection" as many suppose, thereby creating a problem here that does not exist. The context refers to the witnesses not being guilty of sin with respect to their being false or unrighteous witnesses in the matter at hand (cp. Lev.20:10; Deu.17:6-7; Exo.23:1-2 & 7; Deu.19:15-19 and Pro.6:16-19). This is especially made clear in Exodus 23:1-2, 7. The Deuteronomy 19 passages continue the theme of dealing with false witnesses by God's charging the judges with the responsibility of having the sentence that would have been applied to the accused meted out to the false witness. The implication from Jesus' stipulation is that if they obey God, being innocent and without sin regarding this matter, God would doubtless protect them from the Roman authorities. If, however, they are not – well then, they could not expect to be so delivered could they? They would thus incur the same penalty.

What the Lord wrote upon the ground is not recorded, but whatever it was, it had the effect of convicting each of the accusers in his conscience. As one of the main functions of the Law was to convict of sin (Rom.3:20, 7:7 & 8b; 7:13), we are certain that which He wrote was Scripture and from the Law. Besides, it was the Law upon which they hoped to trap Jesus (vs.5), yet now through a word of wisdom (I Cor.12:8; Heb.2:4) the Lord Jesus had used the very same to ensnare them in their own pit. We do not wish to be dogmatic or presumptuous; nevertheless, we strongly maintain that the narrative's context makes plain that Jesus included at least part of Leviticus 20:10 in what He wrote the first time.

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death (Lev.20:10)."

We further affirm, judging from the effect upon these men bent as they were on the destruction of the Lord, the second time Jesus stooped down He wrote from Deuteronomy 19:15-19. These verses have the sobering effect of reminding any "unrighteous" or "false" witnesses that the penalty which they had hoped to inflict upon the accused, would instead be carried out on them! Even though the woman was actually guilty, without two or three of them stepping forward and identifying the man – they would be false and unrighteous with regard to the matter. Moreover, if they now come forward and attempt to only stone the woman, not being willing to also name the man, they will bring upon themselves the selfsame judgment. They filed out from the most honorable to those of the least repute (the probable sense). No one came forward.

The Lord Jesus did not condone the woman's adultery but, as merely the "second man" and the "last Adam" (I Cor.15:45,47), He had no authority to overturn the Roman law and have her stoned. What we are saying is that even though Jesus was God come down to earth, the Judge of all flesh – He had not come in that capacity at this time. This He shall do upon His return. As Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 2:5-18 explain, Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant, humbled Himself to human limitations, entered the arena of human affairs and though He never ceased to be God, He went about defeating the Devil and redeeming the fallen race purely as an unfallen man. In so doing, He demonstrated that the first Adam could have defeated Satan in the contest in Eden – that Satan is so limited that an unfallen man can defeat him and be victorious over temptation and sin by standing on God's Word, be it written as in Jesus' case (Mat.4:1-11) or only spoken as in Adam's case (Gen.2:16-17).

Thus the Judge had laid aside His Judicial Robe and had voluntarily accepted certain limitations including that of submission to the will of the Father in all matters. Jesus had divested Himself of all authority to act in the capacity as a Judge. Lest the reader doubt this or consider such a declaration offensive or demeaning to the person and Holy character of our Lord, remember that Jesus Himself so taught on another occasion (Luk.12:13-14).

Now observe what the Master teacher has accomplished. The Lord Jesus would not deal with the woman in the presence of unbelievers (I Cor.6:1 & 6). His tactic emptied the "Bible study" of the lost hypocrites. This freed Him to deal with her among and within the family of God. The unnamed woman was said to be standing "in the midst" (vs.9). Had everyone left, how could she have been "in the midst"? It does not say that all the people whom our Lord had been instructing went out, but only her accusers, having been convicted. The rest (vs.2) continued with their teacher, the adulteress being in their midst (cp. vs 3b, "in the midst"). Jesus is "left alone" in the sense that His antagonists, having departed, left Him with only true seekers – those of His own "family". It cannot mean "alone" in the absolute sense for we know that the woman was there. The "none" of verse 10 is with regard to the accusers who had burst in with her.

The point being made is that the Lord does not deal with His own concerning their sins in the presence of the wicked. Now that the "courtroom" had been cleared of the infidels, the problem at hand could be handled as a family matter. She is dealt with fully in accord with the principles of the Law, and with "Church" discipline! Jesus had not accepted the testimony of these wicked lost men, men with murder in their hearts, as being credible or valid against a sinning saint. The matter would be handled much as an unconfirmed bad report.

Now He, according to the exact instructions of the Law, brought the "court" to order – calling for the credible witnesses against her (vs.10)! Reader, see it clearly that Jesus is not abrogating the Law as nearly all teach. He said He had not come to do that (Mat.5:17-19)!

Two eye witnesses were required by the law to implement its being carried out (Joh.8:17) and the eye witnesses had to cast the first stones. The death penalty could not be meted out as there were none present. To now do so would actually violate the specific instructions so carefully detailed within the Law. As only an earthly human Judge – Jesus cannot now lawfully condemn her to death; there are no witnesses to her deed present! Truly, the Law had been used by Jesus "lawfully" (I Tim.1:8).

"But how do we know that she was a believer?", one protests – by the way Jesus handled the matter as explained above. Were she a pagan, the manner with which she was dealt within the "Bible study" would make no sense. Next, though not of itself conclusive, she addressed Jesus as "Lord" (vs.11).

Decisive, however, was Jesus' final remark to the woman. Were she unregenerate the Lord's words "go, and sin no more" would be meaningless and vacuous. In the first place, without the Holy Spirit's presence and power in her life, she would be helpless to refrain for long without sin again taking dominion over her.

Secondly and conclusively, she would be no better off with such instructions from Christ as she had been when she had been so unceremoniously brought to Him at the first – for she would still be lost and hell bound even if she never sinned again. The sin she had just committed would doom her apart from a sin substitute – a Savior. Such instructions would only benefit a believer who has fallen into the snare of sin.

But was not Jesus letting her off too easy for such a flagrant shameful sin? Shouldn't she have gotten what she deserved? First, we all deserve to be banished to hell forever – we all have dared to sin against a three times Holy God. By His marvelous plan of redemption through faith in Christ Jesus, God has made a way for Him to deal with us in both mercy and justice such that we are disciplined but not condemned. When He deals with our sin in any way that is less than eternal exile to the lake that forever burns with fire, we all get off "easy" – though it may not seem so at the moment.

Next, we affirm that she did not get off easily. Forever with her would be the humiliation of being caught in the very act of adultery. She had been brought out and terrified with the threat of public execution. What wild fear must have raced through her heart! Consider the shame of being thrust before your own local Bible study half covered – men so bent on the destruction of another would certainly not have allowed time for her to have made herself more "presentable". Brought low before those who know you and the fact of your hypocrisy laid open for all to see – was this really getting off "easy"?

But there is more. To be brought, degraded and disheveled, before the Savior face to face after having just failed Him so ignominiously would not be light discipline. Further, the Name of her God had been dishonored for now the scoffers would mock.

Finally, though forgiven of this sin – and let all observe and mark that Jesus did call adultery "sin", not an "affair between consenting adults" or "a meaningful relationship" – the woman had lost eternal rewards. Blessings that God desired to heap upon her for all eternity, He now in righteousness could not so shower. Oh reader, to forever lose something that He who loves you and died for you would have given you, is not that just punishment? Yes, for such is the actual discipline that was discharged.

Moreover, we do not know if further ramifications followed as venereal disease, pregnancy, loss of husband and/or children (if applicable in her case), loss of job, depression, guilt, etc. Having one's sins forgiven does not mean that the consequences of the sin are obliterated in this life. David was forgiven in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, but the consequences that were set in motion by the sin followed David to his grave. It is to David's credit that he never accused God of dealing too severely with him or whined concerning the matter. For many, stoning would have been the preferred choice over the above. No, her sin was neither condoned nor soft peddled.

Lest the reader still have the slightest reservation that our major points have been inaccurate or mistaken, we call to his attention that these same points are confirmed, being presented afterward in the same chapter! Jesus asserted that He was not there to judge men (vs.15), not yet (cp. John 5:22; 18:36 - i.e.," now")! But if He does judge now (in questions other than civil or criminal matters) in "Family" matters and the like, His judgment will be true (vs.16). In the same verse, Jesus acknowledges that He is not executing this wisdom by His own God power and attributes, but by the power and wisdom of His Father (via the gifts of the Holy Spirit, Heb.2:4 etc.). He then brings up the point from the Law which calls for the necessity of at least the attestation of two witnesses in establishing truth (vs.17), and in verse 36 Jesus makes unmistakably clear that He has final authority.

Majestically, we have seen the Lord Jesus the Christ in an awesome display of wisdom, mercy, love and compassion employ only several Scriptures from the Law and merely 15 words (only 9 in the Greek) to vanquish the wicked. Then with only 21 words (Greek = 18), He both judged and restored a sinning saint. Truly – He is Worthy!

A Limited Atonement?

2006-02-16T15:25:00.001-06:00

I've responded to Nathan's post about Limited Atonement over at Daniel's blog. See his Monday, January 30, 2006 entry: Are you sure that you want to say it like that? entry.

[I brought this post here so that it would be easier to access and for posterity.]

Nathan: “Judging us to be in error and not seeking reconciliation is a characteristic of the Pharisees.”

Why do you write such caustic words? Can you not just agree to disagree without always charging people of being something they are not or doing things they have not done? First we’re not humbling ourselves and now we’re Pharisees. Can you please lay off the ad hominem? I don’t believe that any one of us who disagrees with you is in ANY way Pharisaical. Please Stop.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe someone just doesn't have the time to pursue a rebuttal, but wants to voice their dissent?

It’s one thing to challenge us, it is completely another to slander or belittle us.

I will attempt to “seek reconciliation.”

Nathan: "If we are wrong, by all means show us!”

Mark 16:15; Luke 2:10,30-32; John 3:16; Romans 5:18, 11:32; 2 Cor 5:14-15; I Tim 2:1-6,4:10; Heb 2:9; Titus 2:11-12; II Peter 2:1.

Nathan: “Again, why do we 'force' our understading into the text and determine that 'world' in 1John 2:2 cannot mean all without exception? Because taking world to mean everyone:

A) Is inconsistent with a plethora of other passages (detailing the nature of the atonement and whether Christ actually accomplished anything in His death)."

Jesus accomplished the means of salvation for every man/whosoever will. He was THE passover lamb, right? Just as those who applied the blood on the lintel posts in Egypt were spared physical death, those who are covered in/apply Jesus' blood by believing and receiving Him are spared spiritual death. The passover meal was open to anyone (Jew or Gentile) who would commit to the God of the Israelites and be circumcised. A commitment first and then a circumcision. (Exodus 12)

Please provide the scripture from the OT where it states that those who were saved by looking ahead to the Messiah were given saving grace first.

Jesus died for everyone, but not everyone will accept His gift. So the atonement is limited only insofar as one must believe and receive Him for the atonement to be effective. That doesn’t in any way cause His death to be in vain. If only ONE person accepted Jesus out of all the world, His death would still not be in vain. The only way it would be in vain is if no one ever accepted His death. But please feel free to provide the scripture which states that Jesus' death is in vain if He died for everyone, but not everyone will accept that atonement.

As an aside, Abraham was not circumcised when He “believed” God and his faith was accounted to him for righteousness. Abraham believed and then he was circumcised. Right? And that is how the NT teaches it. Repent + Believe/Faith + Receive = Saving Grace. God gives us a new heart upon our receiving the Lord’s gift of grace. The word of God by the Spirit of God renews our minds/hearts.

Nathan: "B) Is inconsistent with basic logic and rational."

It is only inconsistent with the logic and rationale of Calvinists. It is perfectly consistent, logical and rational to what the word of God teaches. And that is that salvation is available to every man (i.e., whosoever believes/faiths). Jesus died for all (Heb 2:9), but only those who believe and receive will have their sins atoned.

Nathan: "C) Is inconsistent with the actual meaning of the word 'propitiation'."

Please tell us what propitiation actually means since you think we don't seem to understand it.

Nathan: "E) Ignores the many other uses of the term -in the same book and by the same author- where world does not mean every man without exception."

It depends upon the context.

Nathan: "F) Is easily reconcilable with John 11:49"

So. John 11:49 is merely honing in on the fact that the atonement is only effective to those who believe and receive which is something that will happen to men from every part of the world. This scripture doesn't hurt my position, but rather affirms it.

Nathan: "G) Affirms what every true Christian believes (but will not always admit): that there is a limit to who Christ died for -otherwise all men would be saved."

I admit that the atonement is only effectual to those who believe and receive the Lord. But Jesus’ death was the propitiaton that was made available to all men (whosoever will). Calvinists have made up the part that Jesus' death requires all men to be saved if He died for all men.

Hebrews 2:9 “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”

1 John 2:2 “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Luke 2:10,14 “And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

1 Timothy 2:1-6 “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”

All emphasis added to the scriptures.

Nathan: “I just blogged about this recently and I argued that we must understand the intent of the atonement before we understand the extent. That is, if Christ actually accomplished anything by His death, then we must put a limit on it. So your options are: Christ did not actually save anyone, thus you would agree with the Roman Catholics that 'grace' must be added to by our merit. OR, you must affirm that Christ did accomplish something in His death, thus if He died for all then all will be saved.”

OR, we can go with what the word of God actually states and know that Jesus died for all and only those who believe and receive will have their sins atoned.

Nathan “Do you guys realize that you are agreeing with the Catholic view of the atonement? That is, Christ did 99% of the work, but our obedience here on earth determines whether you can appropriate that 99%?”

Do you realize that we do NOT agree with the Catholic view of atonement? Do you realize that Calvinists have just made up this so-called 99/1 % ratio? Do you realize that faith is not a work? Do you realize that it is 100% of God’s grace that saves us when we believe and receive because we have no power within us to save ourselves and that NONE of us deserves to be saved? Do you realize that God LOVES everyone?

Nathan: “Have the Catholics gotten this right?”

No.

Eye on Good Deeds of the "Lost"

2006-02-13T02:03:00.000-06:00

A poster named Eye has responded to a portion of Nathan's response to my "Rightly Dividing The Word of Truth" blog post. I think Eye has made some very good points so I've brought them here as a blog post. Hopefully Nathan, or anyone else who holds to Calvinism, will respond.

Here are Eye's first comments on total depravity.

Here is Eye's comment:

Dawn,

I read in one of Nathan’s previous posts some things that didn’t square with Scripture. Since you and I are discussing Cornelius, I thought I would take the liberty to review one of Nathan’s comments in light of Acts 10.

Nathan said: “Furthermore, your example of ‘lost’ people performing good deeds is a little ridiculous. Any deed that is done out of a heart that is not submitted to Christ is not a good deed –it is from selfish motives. Someone who has elevated something else above Christ (they have not submitted to Him as Lord and savior) does good deeds only for whatever else is elevated above Christ: namely self.”

Interesting comment from Nathan in light of the fact that Cornelius, after Pentecost, as an unregenerated man (the Calvinist must prove by Scripture he was regenerated), actually did do good deeds – see Acts 10:2 ‘A devout man, and one that feared God with his entire household, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.’

Wow – let’s see what the Bible says about Cornelius. Sounds to me like Cornelius had more going on in the ‘good deed’ categories than most so-called Christians I know! He was ‘devout’, oh and he feared God, and not only him but his entire household, and let’s not forget that he gave ‘much alms’ to the people. Now that’s a good deed, and I dare say there were no tax deductions in that day so he was most likely giving of his wealth with no strings attached right off the top. Most impressive indeed -- now I submit that Cornelius did these things because he ‘feared’ God. Cornelius was seeking after God as an unregenerated man. The Calvinist must imply that he was regenerated because it is clearly not in the text. Moreover, as we established from Acts 10 in the previous post, God sent an angel to Cornelius to confirm that his prayers and alms came up for a memorial before God. I do believe praying to God and giving alms to the poor are considered good deeds – just ask any first grader.

Acts 10:3-4 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. The above referenced passage says that Cornelius was afraid. Notice the angel did not say ‘fear not’ to him. I believe the Scripture is clearly affirming the fact that Cornelius is not regenerated, and obviously not saved – and this is after the Cross and Pentecost. Based on the Calvinistic construct you must first be regenerated so that you can then place faith in Jesus so that you then can become born again. There are numerous other places in Scripture where people are confronted by angels and those who are in covenant with God are told they need not fear. However, in this case, there was no ‘fear not’ issued. Those who are estranged from God are left in their fear, because ‘fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ Proverbs 9:10. Therefore I humbly submit that Cornelius was not born again yet, nor was he regenerated. Now, let’s check out this verse.

Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

This verse in Romans 1:16 clearly states that the ‘gospel of Christ’ is the POWER (dunamis – superantural power of God; we get dynamite from the root dunamis) of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (believeth -- pistus in Greek – same word as faith). What’s incredibly interesting to me based on this verse is the fact that the Bible says the gospel of Christ is the power or catalyst that gets one saved, not some mystical or ‘secret work of regeneration’ that occurs prior to someone placing faith in Jesus. I’ve yet to find that teaching anywhere in clear Scripture. Actually the opposite is what the clear teaching of Scripture states. We must first place our faith in Jesus before we can be born again. Please see this Scripture:

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

Now the word power (EXOUSIA) is indeed a very interesting word in the Greek – please see Strong’s definition below. For brevity, I stopped after the 3 point – it continues in detail beyond…

1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
a) leave or permission
2) physical and mental power
a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises
3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)

This clearly teaches that the new birth is conditioned upon you receiving Jesus Christ. To qoute one old preacher, “There is not a case in the history of the universe where any man was ever ‘born again’ until he received Jesus Christ, and to say that total depravity extends to acts of the will is nonsense.” EXOUSIA pretty much confirms that – see definition above. First you must ‘receive’ Him, and then He gives you the power to become the sons of God. You don’t receive in a vacuum; again just study Cornelieus’ testimony as outlined in the Scripture.

Nathan – in case you read this, don’t you realize that John 6 is before the Cross and prior to Pentecost? In other words, it is still technically during the Old Covnenant. I don’t believe the Scripture supports the idea that any ‘Old Covenant’ saint was ever regenerated before placing their faith God. We do know that Abraham was saved because Galatians 3:6 says so. So, he here is an example of a man that was ‘Old Covenant’ saved by believing (FAITHING) the promise that Messiah would come and He would become sin who knew no sin. 2 Corinthians 5:14 – 21 clearly teaches ‘that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them’. Again in John 6, Jesus is specifically addressing his ‘chosen’ disciples and the Jews in that passage. Moreover, have you ever ‘seen’ Jesus with your two eyes like the people who were beholding him during that famous passage? John 6:40 says that everyone that ‘seeth’ the Son and believeth on Him, him will He raise up at the last day. I haven’t seen any Calvinist with enough honesty to preach that – literally seeing and believing ensures you are resurrected. To take this chapter and clearly build a construct and apply it to the entire counsel of Scripture is foolish. We do see where Jesus later confronts Thomas and tells him in John 20 that there will be those who do believe in Him and they haven’t had the ability to ‘see’ Him! Will they be resurrected? Of course they will!

Selah…

Excellent post, Eye!

Eye on Total Depravity

2006-02-13T02:00:00.000-06:00

A poster named Eye has made some very astute comments on my "Rightly Dividing The Word of Truth" blog post that I think bear repeating.

Here are Eye's comments:

Dawn,

Thanks for the opportunity to post a comment. I’ve read your posts and I thank God for your stand for the Truth of His Word. I too have looked into this ‘raging’ debate around the systematic theologic construct commonly called ‘Calvinism’. Yes, the debating is centuries old and it will most likely continue until the LORD returns. However, one of the articles I read recently on this topic by a man who is now a former Calvinist struck a chord in me that continues to resonate. He said that if you can cast doubt on the Calvinist’s definition of ‘total depravity’ – that is, man is incapable of searching the things of God, much less exercising his free will to follow God or choose the things of God, then you can topple the rest of the construct. Let me hasten to add that God’s Holy Spirit will lead us into His Truth if we submit ourselves to Him. With that, if I may, I’ll offer acouple of passages and a few comments around them. The first is from the beginning of God’s creation shortly after the fall of Adam and Eve and the second is right after Pentecost. If you will, at the very beginning of the two Testaments!

Genesis 4:3-13
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

Did you see it? God actually singled out a ‘totally depraved’ man – Cain – and confronted him over his offering and his attitude. God also lovingly ‘challenges’ Cain (and I humbly submit that one can easily see God provides Cain with a choice). The choice is to ‘doest well’ as the KJB says and if Cain does the right thing regarding his offering to the LORD, the LORD promises him that he will be accepted by God. Amazing, a ‘totally depraved’ man is faced with a ‘choice’ to seek and obey God or not to seek Him and as a result he disobeys Him. We know the rest of the story – Cain made the wrong choice. Cain had a body and a soul and his spirit was dead as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. Truly he was a sinner in need of a savior. God told Adam and Eve, who in turn had told their children, about God’s plan (Genesis 3:15). I humbly submit that I believe God must have informed them of His desire for a sacrificial system which Abel obviously believed and followed. Abel obeyed and Cain did not – Cain chose to do it his way.

The nuggets I glean from this passage are that even in the beginning of earth’s history, shortly after sin entered into the human race, God was actively persuing His creation. God personally encounters Cain in love and with His holy conviction. God does not force or make Cain do anything. He simply holds him accountable for his actions and He asks him to ‘contemplate’ his sinful state (disobeying the understood proper sacrifice methodology). God’s dealing with Cain is motivated by His desire to see Cain ‘do well’ and follow God. It can’t be any clearer. Cain had a choice, yes even as a ‘totally depraved’ man – a choice to follow God. But yet, the Calvinist rejects the idea that a totally depraved man can do such a thing!

John Piper’s qoute from Monergism.com on Total Depravity, “In summary, total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sin, our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment.”

I ask a simple question. Did not God ask Cain to reform, or better yet repent of his sin and ‘choose’ to “doest well”? The resounding answer is YES! Then God, who created frail man certainly knows our limitations and capabilities. Why would God ask His creation to do something He knows they can’t possibly do – to follow the Calvinistic argument of total depravity? Absolutely makes no sense does it? Then I humbly submit that God put Cain to a test that He knew the outcome of, but He still gave Cain a choice. We don’t know how long Cain wrestled with this, but we do know he failed. Again, a totally depraved man had a choice to make regarding God!

I also submit an early Church example right after Pentecost at the beginning of the Church and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – Cornelius.

Acts 10: 1-4
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Notice once again that a totally depraved man is ‘seeking’ God! That’s not supposed to be happening according to our Calvinist friends. Get this, his prayers and alms were actually recognized by God, so much so, He summonsed an angel to inform Cornelius.

Acts 10: 22
And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee."

Again, a totally depraved man that actually ‘feareth God’!

Acts 10:30 - 35
And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee. Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Notice above that a totally depraved man fears God and get this – he is also working righteousness! And, let’s don’t forget he is also accepted by God.

Acts 10:44
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Finally, we see that Cornelius heard the Gospel and was saved along with his household. I’m unable to find any reference in these straight forward passages to regeneration prior to placing faith in Jesus! If it’s there, the Calvinist must prove it.

My apologies for the long post, but this has been on my heart for some time! Keep up the good work and fight the good fight.

In Him,

Eye

Eye, I can agree with Piper's definition of total depravity; however, because of the grace of God He doesn't leave us in that depravity. We are totally depraved because of being born with a sin nature, but God has given us all enough grace to stave off the total part of our depravity. It is what we do with His grace that determines how God will deal with us individually, he either hardens us or sheds more light on us. Some he hardens more than others. I think that is because of what they have allowed to cultivate in their hearts, though He does continue to draw. (Please feel free to point out the error in my thinking as I believe discussion helps us to learn from each other.) I do seem to recall a scripture where he does cease to draw, but I can't remember what it is. And it may be something that I've misinterpreted. I find it very odd that the Calvinist agrees that God's grace is prevalent in every way...BUT NOT when it comes to salvation? The most IMPORTANT part of our lives?

Like you pointed out in the account of Cain and Abel, God's grace is extended to us ALL. He shows us that grace throughout the entire bible! He allows things to happen to us, as sinners (and even when we're His children), so that we will cry out to Him and lean on Him. It is absurd to think that because we're spiritually dead that that means we cannot understand that there is hell to pay if we don't choose the path to righteousness, or that we cannot choose to stay out of hell.

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

2006-01-08T12:07:00.000-06:00

Several months ago Nathan and Andrew were kind enough to provide me with scripture which they feel prove the doctrines of Calvinism. The discussion can be read here, here and here. I've studied the scriptures provided and have finally taken the time to repsond, though I do plan to make at least one more post on the subject which hopefully will be a little more cohesive.

My response to the latest discussion:

Let me preface this post by saying that when I type in all caps I am not yelling; I am merely emphasizing my point, so please take it in the spirit in which it is meant. Thank you.

Also, any emphasis to the scripture is added.

Nathan: “First off, we do choose to ‘accept Jesus’, but only after He changes our will so that we then desire spiritual things. We are unable to perform or desire spiritual things until God grants us a new nature which in turn grants us the ability for faith and repentance."

That is not completely true. We have the God-given ability to choose right from wrong and have faith enough to believe in God. (John 1:9; Romans 1-2, 12:3 (more on this later); John 12:46-48) We are all born with a conscience which is the law of God written on our hearts (Romans 2:15). We are dead in sin, but that does not mean that we cannot make a decision to do good. It simply means that our spirit is dead and that we cannot fully understand the things of God or enter the kingdom until we are born of God. Our soul (mind, will and emotions, in other words our heart) is NOT dead; therefore, we can make good decisions. I understood that I was going to Hell if I did not accept Jesus and I didn’t accept Him right off the bat, though I KNEW better. I was dead in sin. I was also a slave to sin. That doesn’t mean that I could not ask for HELP from Jesus Christ to get out of sin and to avoid Hell. There was no POWER within ME that could revive my spirit or keep me from being a slave to sin. That’s all that means. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have the ability to recognize and choose the means to get ourselves out of sin and avoid Hell. I agree that after God has given us a new spirit that we will desire and understand the things of the spirit. But HE first draws us (no autonomy here) and He has given us the ability to accept or reject him: see below. Why would God need to DRAW us if there were not some sort of decision to be made on the part of the person? Why not just QUICKEN OUR SPIRITS?!

None of us is good because we are judged by God’s standards. And yes, we are truly depraved in the eyes of a Holy and Righteous God, but being truly depraved does not mean that we cannot do good. (It is our so-called righteousness that is as filthy rags, thus the need for a savior. Our righteousness is ONLY through the applied blood of Jesus Christ.) Ted Bundy was able to do good and he was about as depraved as they come. Like I’ve stated before, if we can choose not to murder or steal, then we can certainly choose to follow the Lord Jesus when he draws us. I’m not saying that WE are good for we are not. But we DO have the ability to accept or reject Jesus. If we did not then he would not command us to repent or say that IF we would believe on Him we would have eternal life. OF HIS OWN VOLITION, God leaves the choice up to us.

John 12:46-48 “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”

Acts 7:51 “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.”

Proverbs 1:24-33 “Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.”

John 5:38-40 “And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”

You have twisted the word of God to mean what you want it to mean by stating that we cannot choose God without first being born of God. You do that because you believe that God has predestined people to heaven or hell due to their so-called "inability" to make a good choice. So everything is predicated upon that doctrine; a doctrine which is inherently and patently false. Being born of God is to be born again which only happens once someone has received and believed on Jesus. John 1:12-13 explains this very well.

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

ANYONE (God is no respecter of persons and God died for the WHOLE world) who RECEIVES God, God GIVES them the POWER to BECOME the sons of God. It doesn’t say that one must be born of God FIRST. Saying otherwise, now THAT would be eisegesis. The part that says, “nor of the will of man” doesn’t mean what you try to make it out to be. It simply means that through our own wills we CANNOT (meaning we have not the POWER to) make ourselves sons of God. The power is simply not in us, that is what God must GIVE us. Let the reader understand.

You say that John 1:9 doesn’t mean that the light that shines on every man that comes into the world is the light that Jesus gives in order for us to have a measure of faith, ~~then what does it mean?~~ (I see you’ve answered this question further down and I have responded further down.) He is the light which shines throughout our darkness. THAT is the point. Those who love darkness REFUSE to see or come to the light. They KNOW God exists, but they reject Him and are “without excuse.” How can man be "without excuse" if he has no ability to choose? He can't, not if God is a just God, and He certainly IS a just God.

Romans 12:3 is talking about faith IN GENERAL which encompasses the faith it takes to believe AS WELL AS the faith it takes to use the gifts God has given His believers. Even if the context is only speaking of the faith in accordance to the gifts (and I don’t think it is), the statement is ALSO true for faith in general. Romans 1:17 speaks of degrees of faith. And we know that faith comes by hearing the word of God. (Romans 10:17)

There are myriad scirptures which state that we have the ability to choose, to seek and to call upon the Lord without having first been born of God. I will list those in my next post.

Nathan: “Why did these Jews not understand the truth Jesus was speaking? He says the He speaks truth and because they were not of God they could not understand Him. He didn’t say they couldn’t hear God because they WOULD not hear God, He says they couldn’t hear God because they were NOT ‘of God’, or in other words, born of God.”

They did not understand because they chose not to believe Jesus to be the Messiah. They were not "of God" because they chose not to believe on whom God sent to be the Messiah. (Matthew 13:15) There are many people who believe in God but who do not believe Jesus to be God come in the flesh. It is when they BELIEVE Jesus is the only way to salvation that they can THEN become the sons of God as shown in John 1:12-13. BELIEF from their God-given ability (the light that lights every man i.e., God has shown them: Romans 1:19) must come FIRST. God allows us to choose whether or not to believe (It is stated throughout the entire Bible). Their hearts were evil and they were religious. They thought just because they were born of Abraham (physically) that they were Godly people when they were only religious. God didn’t make them that way, they did it to themselves. Those who choose to disbelieve cannot understand the things of God.

So to recap: They first WOULD NOT hear and BECAUSE they would not hear they COULD NOT hear. God kept their eyes and their ears closed upon their choosing to NOT hear and choosing to NOT believe. God did not close their eyes and ears first.

Matthew 13:15 "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

John 8:24 “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”

But of course your stance is that God arbitrarily chooses whom he gives belief to and that it is not given to every man. That is not what the Bible teaches. That interpretation is one of eisegesis and not one of exegesis. God loves the WHOLE world and He would that NONE should perish. NONE. That means NONE of mankind. US. US=Mankind, not just believers. Remember Jesus asked the Father to forgive those who crucified Him because they knew not what they had done? Who killed Jesus? The Jews that rejected Him along with the Romans. He STILL loves them and does not want them to perish, but rather wants them to repent! (Ezekiel 18:21-32)

[Edited to clarify and correct part of the first sentence in the above paragraph. It should read:

But of course your stance is that God arbitrarily chooses whom he gives belief to and that He does not give faith to every man. That is not what the Bible teaches.]

Ezekiel 18:32 “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Nathan: “If this is a man-made doctrine, why does Jesus say that ‘all that the Father gives to Me will come to Me’? Is there the possibility that the Father will give someone to the Son and that one will fail to come to the Son?

No, like the scripture states, the Father gives to Jesus all who hear and learn of Him. (John 6:45) Those aspects are key. The parts that are man-made are the notions that God is arbitrary in his selection and that man has no freewill when it comes to accepting or rejecting Jesus. Calvinists always assert that God chooses whom HE will to go to heaven or hell out of His own good pleasure and for no apparent reason. That is NOT what the scripture teaches. It teaches that out of His good pleasure He chose to provide a way of salvation for mankind even though man does not deserve it. A way of salvation is His good pleasure, not that He sends people to heaven or hell. He LOVES us ALL.

Nathan: “Since the bible says we are dead in sins and then Christ awakens us to the light, this analogy works perfect for those who are humble enough to accept it.”

I’ll humble myself and just let that jab go.

Nathan: “So we have freewill to give ourselves physical life? No, we cannot choose to give ourselves physical life. So then, if you are consistent with yourself (in the above statement), then you must affirm that we do not have the freewill to give ourselves spiritual life. Man is DEAD in his sins, and can do nothing but sin. Why would the scriptures repeatedly say we are dead if we are in fact only injured?

I affirm that we do not have the power to give ourselves spiritual life. Do we have the ability to choose spiritual life? YES! Freewill to choose to receive spiritual life is very different from actually giving spiritual life and that is where Calvinists err.

We ARE dead spiritually, but we are not dead mentally. It is our spirits which must be raised so that our souls can have true life!

Nathan: “Man’s will is enslaved to sin until we are granted spiritual life.”

True, but that does not mean that we cannot choose to want out of that enslavement. You are inserting your beliefs into the biblical teachings. Again, we have the ability to not commit murder, so we certainly have the ability to choose to accept the love of Jesus who will free us from that BONDAGE of sin once we are shown through the law that we are indeed sinners and that we are in need of a savior in order to escape the penalty of hell.

Why would the bible say that the law is our schoolmaster if we are not able to see that we are evil and that we NEED a savior?

Nathan: “Paul is not talking about his response to Christ in the matter of salvation. He is talking about his obedience to PREACH the resurrected Jesus.”

Touché.

Nathan: “There is nothing in the passage to suggest that God forsees anything or that the Father gives those who ‘accept Him’. The text says exactly the opposite! You are inserting your own beliefs into the text, not getting it out of the text, and that is called isegesis.”

Believe on Him means to accept Him! Does it not?!

I know very well what eisegesis is and that is what Calvinism (total inabilty/irresistible grace/predestination) is based upon. I was referring to John 6:64-65 which explains 6:37-42. This could be a word of knowledge, though God does have foreknowledge of EVERYTHING. I don’t know if this scripture is saying that Jesus knew from the beginning of when He began His ministry or from the beginning of the foundation of the world. Now that I’m thinking about it is probably since His ministry because Jesus (as a man) got His information from God as in words of knowledge as in “I do as my Father tells me or I know what the Father shows me," etc.

Having said that the actual text is speaking of whom the Father gives to Jesus, though it is in no way an irresistible grace/predestination thing as taught by Calvinists. Again, the Father gives to Jesus those who truly believe.

John 6:64-65 “But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”

Nathan: “John 1:9 says nothing of the like. John is simply stating that God coming in the flesh gives the glimpse of the Divine to every man.”

I thought it was your belief that unregenerate man cannot SEE the divine. How is it that God can give a GLIMPSE of the divine if WE, who are not born of God, CANNOT SEE? It says that Jesus LIGHTS every man. That means, as Romans 1 and 2 teach, that WE KNOW BETTER! You’re the one who is inserting their beliefs into the scripture by taking certain scriptures and not reading them with the WHOLE counsel of the word.

Romans 1:19-21 “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

Please tell me how, with your theology, a man who is NOT born of God can KNOW God as this scripture reveals. The scripture is quite clear that it is MAN who puts Himself in hell because of His REFUSAL to acknowledge and obey God. True, WE cannot SAVE ourselves. It IS a gift from God. True, God GIVES us our faith, but He gives that to EVERY man. It is up to MAN to do right by it from His GOD-GIVEN abilities to CHOOSE as we ALL have a conscience and the commandments of God written on our hearts.

While you’re at it, please exegete this:

1 Timothy 2:3-4 “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who desires to have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

John 3:14-21 “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

Deuteronomy 30:19 “ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

2 Peter 2:1 “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

Acts 3:19 “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;”

Why would God command men to repent, to choose or to believe when they have no ability to do so. Isn’t it a bit absurd for Him to say things that are IMPOSSIBLE? And God makes these commands THROUGHOUT the Bible. It is what the Bible is about! It is about God’s love for every man and providing a way to salvation! I feel very sorry for anyone who cannot see the love of God in His book to us. It is SO obvious.

Nathan: “Again, your not reading the full text [John 6:37-45]. Jesus says that ALL who are called are RAISED. So then, if you believe that ALL are called, that is, every single human, then you have to believe ALL are going to be raised on the last day. That is what the text says, and I’m certain you are not a universalist.”

I think it is you who needs to read the full text. It does NOT say all who are called are raised. It says that all whom the Father GIVES Jesus will be raised. Who are the ones whom the Father gives to Jesus? Those who HEAR AND LEARN. Who are those who HEAR? Those who choose to BELIEVE. Those who choose to believe THEN LEARN and are thus BORN AGAIN. Those who refuse to hear cannot hear and are damned already.

Matthew 10:14 ”And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Matthew 13:15 “For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”

There are plenty more scriptures where God shows us that it is the people THEMSELVES who CHOOSE not to hear or see. It is because they love the darkness more than the light.

Nathan: “Again, where is any notion of ‘foreknowing’ in this text? It’s absent once again. You cannot keep inserting your own beliefs into such a clear text and expect the truth to be revealed. And no, you cannot read the text backwards. I’m not sure where you got that interpretation, but whoever provided it doesn’t know anything about Greek.”

I got the interpretation from my knowledge of the scriptures as a whole. And no, I don’t know anything much about Greek other than looking up greek words in the concordance. What? Are you a greek scholar? Must I know greek before I can exegete the scriptures? I think not. Please, Nathan, don’t let your seminary teaching go to your head and think more highly of yourself than you ought.

Nathan: “If you want to accuse me of wrongly dividing the word of truth, please show from the actual text of Acts chapter 13 where exactly your belief is stated, otherwise, your accusations are baseless."

That is precisely the problem with the doctrine of “irresistible grace/predestination,” those who hold to the belief have to take scripture out of context to prove their point while disregarding the whole of the scripture. Predestination and Grace are taught in the Bible, but not as the Calvinist would teach it. You want me to stay with Acts 13:48 because of how is SOUNDS. It SOUNDS like ONLY those whom God has “arbitrarily chosen” are ordained to eternal life. But a proper exegesis of the scripture says otherwise.

Acts 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Who are those who are ordained to eternal life? It is those who(soever) believe and receive. (John 1:12) Romans 8:29-30 tells us that those who are ordained to eternal life ARE foreknown. Ephesians 1 shows us what exactly it was that was foreordained/predestinated. It is predestined that those who believe and receive (accept) Jesus will be saved. (Not that God arbitrarily chooses a person out of His own good pleasure. That God chose to provide a savior AT ALL was what was out of His own good pleasure. That is not to say that God does not do other things out of His own good pleasure, but this is certainly one of them.) So all that put together (a right division) is where I get my interpretation of Acts 13:48. No greek needed! Imagine that! :-D

Nathan: “So ‘breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord’ was Paul with his heart right? [Later down in verse 15]: “[Paul] is a chosen vessel of mine”. Amazing how similar this wording is to Romans 9. But you affirm that Paul could have rejected the Lord while he was lying on the road blind?"

When I say that Paul’s heart was right, I mean that he was not evil like some of the other Pharisees. Paul says he did all that he did out of ignorance and unbelief. I could be completely wrong about the condition of Paul’s heart, but that doesn’t change the fact that Paul could have rejected Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:12-13 “And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.”

Yes, I believe that Paul could have rejected the Lord, but I think God knew that He would not.

Ok I’m confused, are you now saying that anyone who is a “chosen vessel” cannot disobey? Because this is what you said before:

Nathan: “I never said that we are unable to be disobedient....But again, you do not understand my position. I never state that we have no choice in the matter. We DO have a choice, but unless one is born of the Spirit we will always choose the wrong choice.”

Romans 9 doesn’t mean what you make it out to mean. None of it has to do with salvation. It certainly doesn’t mean that God created someone evil or created someone for the PURPOSE of going to heaven or hell. And maybe I’ve misunderstood you and that’s not what you are saying either, but that’s what it seems like to me. That’s all I’ll say about it because I plan to go more into it in my next post.

Unless one is born of the Spirit we will ALWAYS choose the wrong choice?! No, you dit-unt! I guess everyone who warms a pew, feeds and clothes the poor, visits the prisoners, donates money and time to charities, etc. MUST be one who is born of the Spirit? I know you don't believe that! Do you?

Nathan: “No matter how hard you may deny it, but if you ‘made the right call’ while others failed to repent and place faith, the final glory goes to you. Yeah I know you will affirm that you could never earn heaven, or that God gets the glory because He supposedly provided a way out, but if the FINAL decision lies in your will, your will is to be gloried and honored above all else. Please review the Martin Luther quote Andrew provided to you in the comments section several months back.”

That is absurd. That is NOT what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that man sinned and deserved death and that God has provided a way for man to reconcile with God. God provided that reconciliation for EVERY MAN.

"He supposedly provided a way out"? (emphasis added) Care to explain that one?

1 Timothy 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

1 Timothy 2:6 "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

John 12:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

1 John 2:2 "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

No, the final glory does not go to me and I don’t regard ANY glory in myself for having heeded the call of God. I don’t get ANY glory for making the right choice. How could I? There wasn’t anything “I” did to provide salvation. What I feel is THANKFULNESS! What I have done is to humble myself before God. (Matthew 18:4; James 4:6) But the other side to that is that you all could boast that you were CHOSEN. How is that any different than what you’ve stated? It could still be perceived that God loves those HE supposedly arbitrarily chose MORE than those He did not. God is no respecter of persons. He loves us all equally as the few scriptures I’ve provided above show.

I’ve just re-read Andrew’s Luther quote and I still disagree with it. To have a freewill does not negate the need for Jesus. The idea that it does is absurd.

Nathan: “You [Dawn] said: All who "hear" or "believe" (i.e., accept or put their faith in) and "learn" come to the Father.

Nathan: “That is not what the text says. You cannot read it backwards and ‘rightly divide the word of truth’.”
Let’s look at it again."

John 6:44-45 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

Where have I read it backwards? When we’re taught of God that is one way in which God draws us. Every man who has heard and learned comes to Jesus. Again, where have I read it backward. Jesus makes a statement and then EXPLAINS the statement. In other words, everyone who has ears to hear and eyes to see because they CHOOSE to believe and do not REJECT but rather RECEIVE the commands of God are those whom the FATHER GIVES TO JESUS. It is really very simple.

Nathan: “Actually, it makes no sense to elect someone who ‘elected’ themselves. Why would God need to choose us if we chose Him? Again, this is not what the verse says. It says that NO MAN can come to Jesus unless the Father draws. And does the Father draw every man? No He doesn’t, because the rest of the verse says ALL who are drawn are raised.”

When you elect a candidate do you not elect them on certain criteria? Are there certain credentials that must be met in order for them to get your vote? And no, I’m not talking about works here. I’m talking about making a decision which in no way means “works.” God elects us when we meet certain criteria (i.e., belief, receipt and a willingness to repent). Yes, the Father draws every man. (John 12:32) And no, you are wrong, everyone who is given to Jesus is who is raised, not everyone who is drawn. (Please provide the scripture if I’ve got the wrong one.) Why would Jesus die for every man (Hebrew 2:9) if every man weren’t capable of being saved?

The bible teaches that we are all invited to receive salvation, those who receive and believe will be given the power to repent. Those who do not receive and believe are not given the power to repent. It is that simple.

Nathan: “Why would you have us believe that ‘no man can come’ actually means ‘every man can come’?”

It means that no man can come to the father on his own and that it is God who first DRAWS someone to Him. Once a person is drawn by God and chooses to believe and receive that drawing by believing what he is taught through the scripture, that person will then be given the power to repent. Read John 6:44 AND 6:45. The fact that all men are drawn has already been established. That is the WHOLE counsel of scripture, not scripture taken out of context.

Cessationism vs. Continuationism

2005-11-18T23:20:00.000-06:00

There is a debate going on throughout the blogosphere (I haven't followed it all) about whether or not the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased. Prophecy is the gift in question in this particular thread. If you believe they have ceased, then you are a cessationist. If you believe the gifts are still around today, then you are a continuationist. I have no idea what you are if you're undecided. Though I'm sure someone has a term for it.

I am a continuationist because God said that the gifts would not cease until that which is perfect has come, meaning the return of Jesus Christ. (I Corinthians 13:9-10) And unless we are all in Hell and don't know it, Jesus has not yet returned for His bride and Hell isn't so bad afterall. NOT! So, first and foremost, I believe the word of God. Second, I have experienced some of the gifts myself. I've been healed miraculously on more than one occasion; I've been given a word of knowledge two times by people who didn't know me from Adam and they were spot on; and a specific word of knowledge went out about someone who needed to be healed and from that day forward a gradual healing took place in my life (not the tobacco addiction I spoke of in the comments section on Phil's blog). I have NO doubt in my mind that those healings and words were directly from God and no cessationist can take that away from me. They are entitled to their opinion and are at liberty to disbelieve if they so choose, but I've lived it and I know that I know that I know it happened to me. There is more, but it would take too long to explain.

Having said all that, I am now very cynical of anyone who professes to be a prophet or speak a word of knowledge due to all the charismania that has gone on throughout these past couple of decades as well as other personal experiences. I have experienced men and women who have said, "Thus saith the Lord" and I know that it was not "Thus saith the Lord" because it either did not line up with scripture or the person did not do everything they said the Lord told them to do. There is more to the story, but it is too long to go into right now. I've also had someone try to push me down so as to make it appear that I was "slain in the spirit." I resisted so hard that it hurt my neck and the person got mad at me for "not going down." I do not find being "slain in the spirit" in scripture, but I also do not totally discount it because God could knock me out cold if He wanted to by His very power. There is more on this subject that I've had experience with, but it is too long to explain.

In terms of the continuation of prophecy, Phil has asked the continuationist to name just one prophet who has been 100% accurate in their prophecies. Of course he's only thinking of the nationally and globally known Kim Clements and Benny Hinns of the world: proven false prophets. Also, we're merely a few readers of his blog and not a true sample of the entirety of Christendom, so who's to say that there isn't someone out there who does know of someone who is 100% accurate in their prophetic utterances. But I think Dan Edelen has posted an excellent response to the whole issue which echoes my sentiments exactly. I hope that anyone reading will take the time to read Dan's entire post.

Here is an excerpt.

The problem, and I'm totally sympathetic to Phil's complaint about bogus prophets, is that the scientific rationalism and "We're rich and enlightened so we don't need God" attitude only kills the miraculous among people who don't believe it. While this may be prevalent in the West, it does not negate the fact that God is going to do supernaturally miraculous kinds of things (that some claim don't happen anymore) among people who still take Him at His Word concerning the gifts. This is why revival is sweeping China and other less scientifically-indoctrinated cultures and is missing the West.

In other words, I think that predictive prophetic utterances that are truly of the Lord are rare in the West. But experience does not trump Truth! That our experience of prophecy today is rare does not mean that it is non-existent or rare in places around that world where those who speak predictive prophecy prophesy in obscurity.

God has a history of taking away from those who do not appreciate what He has given them and giving to people who do. Just because the wind has died down here in our anti-supernatural, rationalistic country does not mean that there are not prophets even now speaking to the Church in China and in places where people are willing to believe because belief is all they have.

So no, I can't give Phil names of any 100% accurate predictive prophets in 2005 (because tracking supposed prophets is not my calling), but neither can he prove that none exist elsewhere in the world, either today or at any time since the death of the apostles--especially since some leading Calvinists of yesteryear were definitely prophesying, hearing the audible voice of God, and having visions in a Europe not yet overcome by anti-supernaturalism and the Enlightenment.

Phil Johnson:

What I am concerned with in these posts is prophecy as new revelation, period. The foretelling/forthtelling distinction may not be terribly helpful, because someone who claims to have "a special word from God" for you might not, technically, be telling the future; yet he is claiming to be an agent of new divine revelation.

I've asked twice for Phil, or someone else, to provide us an example of what is meant by "new revelation." So far, no one has bothered to do so. Maybe Phil just hasn't gotten around to it yet since he's been out of town. Another poster referred me to a book by Rick Joyner called The Harvest. I appreciate the information, but I'm just looking for a quick example or definiton.

Phil Johnson:

Yet inconsistently, without any clear biblical statement or warrant for their opinion, they simultaneously insist that there was a major shift in the nature of the prophetic gift sometime between the Testaments—so that NT prophecy is supposed to be fallible and utterly unreliable, and yet be embraced as divine revelation.That's why they insist that we should evaluate NT prophecy by a totally different standard from the one given to us in the OT.And that, on the face of it, is an absurd position.

I have to agree with Phil on this one. God did not change His standards on prophecy. True prophecy is still infallible; else we would not know a person to be a true prophet or not.

I particularly liked Dan's challenge to Phil and hope Phil will at least comment on the challenge. But I'm not holding my breath.

Phil's burden of proof for charismatics is to spotlight one modern prophet who is 100% accurate. For the purpose of exceptions, I would like to turn that around on Phil (especially in the light of his post's conclusion above) and have him prove that beginning the day after John died, not a single accurate prophetic word has been uttered by anyone in the rest of Christian history. Now that's a burden of proof!

1 Corinthians 13:9-10 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Governmentium: A New Scientific Discovery

2005-10-06T07:21:00.000-05:00

Thanks to John McAdams for this most interesting discovery.

Science finds heaviest element

This hurricane mess and gasoline issues are proof that it exists. A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named “Governmentium.” Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete, when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium – an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

God Is Superior To Darwinism

2005-10-03T23:13:00.000-05:00

Despite what we fallible humans do or don't do in the name of God His teachings, as found in the Holy Bible, are superior to any man-made doctrine or unscientific theory.

Leo has linked to a couple of articles which I find to be very interesting. He gives us a heads up on what might be a new tactic which the media will use in an attempt to discredit Christianity. Here was my reply which has been edited for clarification:

Leo asks:

"1) Are murderers really committed to the God who condemns hatred, revenge and murder?

2) Are immoral people really committed to the God who calls all to holiness and purity?"

Dawn says:
The answer is no and no.

90% of the people in our country may believe in God, but they certainly do not obey or fear God. Believing in God is not enough. Fearing and obeying God is the key and the sign of a true Christian. Most people who claim a belief in God, including those who attend church and pray regularly, do not properly fear God and have a very distorted view of the true and living God, which is aptly shown by this "study".

Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Modernism and post-modernism have taken the fear of God away from the people in the church and the shame and taboo of immorality in both church and society.

Today, the church teaches that God is all loving (and He is) and all forgiving (and He is that too), but they neglect to teach that God is just and that there are both earthly and eternal consequences to our actions, good and bad. This has lead to the "secularization" of the church. The church has left its first love and become yoked with the world making it very difficult to see much of a difference between the Godly and the ungodly. Holiness has flown out the window and you are bigoted and judgmental if you point out the unholiness within the ranks. I'm afraid some people are in for a very rude awakening come judgment day.
Matthew 7:21-23 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Society has taken away the shame of homosexuality, promiscuity, pornography, unwed pregnancies, cohabitation, adultery, abortion, etc. Unfortunately, the same goes for much of the church.

Add to that the fact that our government is soft on crime (not to mention corrupt) and becoming softer everyday. There is no fear of punishment on the part of the criminal. In most cases, they have it better in prison than they do outside of prison. Our prisons should be a place that people do not want to go.

Add to that the fact that political correctness denies us the ability to face and fix our problems, thus they continue to mulitply.

One of the articles stated that the non-violent and non-lethal violent crime rate in the secular democracies is not disproportionately higher than that of the U.S., but the murder rate in the U.S. is substantially higher. So if we were to get our act together and truly serve God, and our government would enforce the law and/or return to a tougher stance on crime by meting out punishments swiftly and quickly, like the death penalty, or actually require prisoners to serve the sentences pronounced instead of releasing them early, the U.S. would not have higher crime rates than the secular deomocracies, but rather the secular democracies would have a disproportionately higher rate of crime than that of the U.S.

Benjamin Franklin was right on the mark when he stated that "religion will be a powerful regulator of our actions, give us peace and tranquility within our minds, and render us benevolent, useful and beneficial to others." Because, in Franklin's mind, he was speaking in terms of true religious worship and practices, namely Christianity.

We don't have the raw data, but taking the "results" of this "study" at face value show it to be grossly flawed in its premise. To relate religion (which is the code word for Christianity) to a high crime rate is absurd. God forbids the very practices which bring about crime. What was proven by this study is that America is a Christian nation in name only. The people who profess a belief in God but do not conduct themselves in a godly manner might as well be Darwinists because they're acting like the animals from which Darwinists believe we've evolved.

This "study" is also a woefully transparent attempt to discredit God and to proclaim Darwinism as intellectually superior. Nothing could be further from the truth for God's ways are perfect. If we, as a "Christian" nation, would but obey His word we would be that "shining light on a hill" that once we were further exposing Darwinism for the danger that it truly is given its logical conclusion: to each his own no matter what it takes, for tomorrow we die.

Bennett's Blunder?

2005-10-01T01:52:00.000-05:00

This excerpt is what the hooplah is all about concerning Mr. William Bennett. I have emphasized the part which has been taken out of context and blown-up out of all proportion.

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky. (emphasis added)

I understand that what Bennett said (and I deeply respect Bennett, BTW) seemed insensitive in our highly charged, politically correct climate, but it was a true statement. Statistically, blacks make up the highest percentage in America's crime rate, though they are obviously not the only race with crime issues. However, not allowing people to speak candidly about the cause and effect of our social ills has exacerbated the problem, especially in the black community. Instead of burying our heads in the sand, we should be doing whatever it takes to resolve the issues which serve to destroy us from the inside out. Sometimes the truth hurts.

A good start would be to allow open and honest dialogue. Identifying and addressing the issues which plague our society head-on is the only way we will ever be able to overcome our obstacles.

Bennett merely stated a truth within a hypothetical, and admittedly "reprehensible", so-called solution to the crime rate. The sad fact is that Bennett truly believes this practice to be reprehensible while some who hold to a liberal mindset are actually DOING IT! Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for the link.

Statement By Bill Bennett, Sep. 30, 2005

From the Desk of William J. Bennett September 30, 2005

"On Wednesday, a caller to my radio show proposed the idea that one good argument for the pro-life position would be that if we didn't have abortions, Social Security would be solvent. I stated my doubts about such a thesis, as well as my opposition to such a form of argument (the audio of the call is available at my Website: bennettmornings.com).

"I then stated that such extrapolations of this argument can cut both ways, and cited the current bestseller, Freakonomics, which discusses the authors' thesis that abortion reduces crime.

"Then, putting my philosophy professor's hat on, I went on to reveal the limitations of such arguments by showing the absurdity in another such argument, along the same lines. I entertained what law school professors call 'the Socratic method' and what I would hope good social science professors still use in their seminars. In so doing, I suggested a hypothetical analogy while at the same time saying the proposition I was using about blacks and abortion was 'impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible,' just to ensure those who would have any doubt about what they were hearing, or for those who tuned in to the middle of the conversation.

"The issues of crime and race have been on many people's minds, and tongues, for the past month or so--in light of the situation in New Orleans; and the issues of race, crime, and abortion are well aired and ventilated in articles, the academy, the think tank community, and public policy. Indeed the whole issue of crime and race is not new in social science, nor popular literature. One of the authors of Freakonomics, himself, had an extended exchange on the discussion of these issues on the Internet some years back--which was also much debated in the think tank community in Washington.

"A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.

"In sum, let me reiterate what I had hoped my long career had already established: that I renounce all forms of bigotry--and that my record in trying to provide opportunities for, as well as save the lives of, minorities in this country stands up just fine."

Bennett's record DOES speak for itself. I don't believe that Bill Bennett has a racist bone in his body. The truth is that liberals are not really concerned with "racism", rather they are mostly concerned with demonizing conservatives in any way they can by twisting their words and/or pulling them out of context. Some of the headlines about Bennett's comments read, "Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down""; "Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime"; "Bennett's remarks are the real crime"; etc.

Where was the outrage when Senator Charles Rangel compared president Bush to Bull Connor. An absurd comparison. Or where is the outrage when blacks make racist statements about whites? There is none. But when a good and decent man, whose record speaks for itself, makes a hypothetical, but true, statement he is unduly lynched by the liberal mob mentality. The double standard is sickening.

Did Bennett blunder? Only if you've got problems with your reasoning, critical thinking, and comprehension skills.

A Happy Ending

2005-09-18T09:32:00.000-05:00

After being trapped in his attic for 16 days, 76 year old Gerald Martin is rescued by FEMA!

"Madden [one of the rescuers] said the heat in the attic might have been even worse, perhaps fatal, except for shade provided by a fallen tree."

I see this as the hand of God providing some relief for Mr. Martin. I'll bet Mr. Martin has gotten to know the Lord a lot better over these past two weeks.

1Peter 4:12 "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:"

I wonder if his family had given up hope that he might still be alive.

Court Appointments

2005-09-15T05:26:00.001-05:00

There are two vacancies on the Supreme Court on President Bush's watch. John Roberts will more than likely be confirmed as the replacement for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Rehnquist was, after all, a conservative so the Dems won't put up as much of a fight. The real fight, it appears, will be the nominee who is set to replace Justice Sandra Day-O'Connor. Somewhere along the line the Democrats decided that a Republican president must replace liberal for liberal on the Supreme Court. I would bet a million dollars that these same Democrats would not reciprocate that same ideal for a Democratic President if a vacancy came up and the justice to be replaced were a conservative. In fact, they would insist that the President is free to appoint whomsoever he felt to be qualified for the position, and Republicans would not disagree.

My hope is that President Bush will not acquiesce to Democratic bellyaching in an effort to be "a uniter, not a divider" when selecting a nominee to replace O'Connor. I don't believe in being divisive for divisiveness' sake, but if one's prinicples are Godly and they divide then so be it. I hope President Bush will do what is best for the country and not what is best for his political image or his legacy.

Unbelievable...But Not Really

2005-09-10T00:59:00.000-05:00

I'm almost speechless. This man has the AUDACITY to blame the federal government (namely, Bush and his administration) for the deaths of the people who were stranded at the shelters when time was of the essence and it turns out that it was his uppity-ineptitude that delayed the evacuation of these people?!

Mayor Nagin, you're definitely no Rudy Giuliani.

News Max
Thursday, Sept. 8, 2005 11:38 a.m. EDT
Ray Nagin: School Buses Not Good Enough
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin garnered a ton of publicity with a profanity-laced interview he gave to WWL radio last Thursday, where he blasted President Bush and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco for not coming to rescue his city in time.
However, Nagin's most newsworthy comments - where he explained why he didn't use hundreds of city school buses to evacuate his city's flood victims - went almost unnoticed.
Turns out, Nagin turned his nose up at the yellow buses, demanding more comfortable Greyhound coaches instead.
"I need 500 buses, man," he told WWL. "One of the briefings we had they were talking about getting, you know, public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out of here."
Nagin described his response:
"I'm like - you've got to be kidding me. This is a natural disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans."
While Nagin was waiting for his Greyhound fleet, Katrina's floodwaters swamped his school buses, rendering them unusable. (emphasis added)

The Blame Game & Race Baiters

2005-09-09T06:16:00.000-05:00

I really hate the blame game and I especially detest it when the race card is pulled without warrant, but when the people blaming others are really the one's at fault it should be exposed as such. I am getting really tired of hearing that President Bush hates black people and that because the vast majority of the New Orleans evacuees are black he took his time in sending aid. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe the problem was a combination of bureaucratic red tape and incompetence.

I am sure that we can find fault in every level of government, but the bulk of it lies within the local level. (Some of the fault lies with the people themselves for not having evacuated when they were urged to do so. However, there were many poor and elderly people who had no way of evacuating.) Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco, I believe, were incompetent in this crisis. Nagin had over 200 school buses which he could have used to evacuate the people. Nagin and Governor Blanco are still at odds as to whether or not they should call for a mandatory evacuation of those who remain in the city. These two people know the demographics of their city and state better than the federal government. It was the city's and state's responsibility to have a workable plan to help those in need of evacuation. It is a well known fact that the citizens of the city of New Orleans would be in grave danger due to much needed repairs of the levee which kept the waters at bay. Leo has some excellent links to articles which go into great detail about the dangers that lurked in New Orleans in his September 5 blog entry.

There is much more, but I do not have the time to go into it all. President Bush strongly suggested to the the Governor of Louisiana that she should begin evacuating the people before the storm hit. Nagin and Blanco need to discontinue blaming everyone else for their own incompetence.

I'll leave you with this all important tidbit of information that is sure to get your blood boiling and raise your blood pressure. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their ilk also need to refrain from blaming President Bush for things in which he had no control. From what I understand, the mainstream media is choosing not to report this important information.

News Max

Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2005 11:52 p.m. EDT

Gov. Kathleen Blanco's Bureaucrats Blocked Food and Water

The Red Cross was reportedly ready to deliver food, water and other supplies to flood-ravaged refugees who were sweltering inside New Orleans' Superdome last week - but the relief was blocked by bureaucrats who worked for Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco.

Fox News Channel's Major Garrett reported Wednesday that the Red Cross had "trucks with water, food, hygiene equipment, all sorts of things ready to go ... to the Superdome and Convention Center."

But the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, Garrett said, "told them they could not go."
"The Red Cross tells me that Louisiana's Department of Homeland Security said, 'Look, we do not want to create a magnet for more people to come to the Superdome or Convention Center, we want to get them out,'" he explained.

"So at the same time local officials were screaming where is the food, where is the water, the Red Cross was standing by ready [and] the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security said you can't go."

Parody or Postmodernity?

2005-07-30T18:35:00.000-05:00

I was reading Phil Johnson’s blog and ran across this jewel, provided by Nathan. I think Phil aptly described my own feelings when he stated, "It was funny, horrifying, deeply disturbing, and appalling all at once." (I look forward to reading more of Phil’s blog. At first glance, it appears as though Nathan has covered just about every subject I had planned on blogging in just one blog! =:o Still, I can hardly wait to read beyond the headings.)

I think the guy who produced this video is serious and not making fun of Christianity, though I did wonder at first. Obviously this young man is talented; however, it has become an unfortunate trend in the church to mix worldly pleasures with the things of God. What is even more unfortunate is that this type of behavior is highly encouraged by our church leaders in an effort to draw the younger crowd into the church (though, there are also compromises in other areas of the church, but I’ll leave that for another blog entry), thus creating false converts. I'm not saying that the young man who created the video is a false convert, but I know there are many out there.

Somewhere along the line our Creator was morphed from who He really is-- God Almighty who demands and deserves our reverence, the God who chastises those whom He loves, the God who leads us in paths of righteousness for His name’s sake-- into an impostrous "loving" (read: non-judgmental) God who is "hip and cool" and does not hold one accountable.

Please do not get me wrong, I am not saying that God is not loving (read: gentle and comforting) and longsuffering because He most certainly is. But the love of God is pure, holy and just. It does not tolerate compromise or stand for irreverence. There will always be consequences of one degree or another to one's actions whether good or bad, and it is quite dangerous to teach otherwise.

Our pastors need to repent and stop with the gimmicks already. They need to lead by putting their faith in the word of God, lifting up Jesus who will draw all men unto Him instead of allowing compromise to overrun the church by preaching "feel good, non-offensive" messages. They need to be preaching holiness and reverence, obedience and sacrifice, and holding their congregations accountable for their actions. It is my prayer that this young man will wise up and direct his talents toward an uncompromised approach of witnessing and preaching the gospel and drop the über-coolness act.

Travesty of Justice

2005-07-28T09:24:00.001-05:00

On July 4, 2005 Karla Homolka was released from prison. I'm very familiar with Karla Homolka and her husband, Paul Bernardo. Some years ago I read the book Deadly Innocence which goes into great detail about these two monstrosities. In the early 90's, Karla and Paul abducted, tortured, raped and murdered two teenage girls in Canada. The two were also responsible for the rape and death of Karla's younger sister, Tammy. Before Paul and Karla hooked up, Paul was busy raping other women, then dubbed "The Scarborough Rapist." Paul and Karla are also supsected of raping and murdering a woman in Hawaii while on their honeymoon.

Karla plea bargained for a lesser charge of manslaughter in return for her testimony against her husband. While it is true that her testimony was absolutely necessary for a successful conviction against her husband, I think Karla got off way too easily. She was sentenced to just 12 years in prison, in a minimum security facility! Inside the "prison" she was free to sunbathe, attend birthday parties and earn a degree in psychology. Where's a puke emoticon when you need one!?

I ran across this piece of ridiculousness while doing a search for some sort of press release on Karla:

"Does the public really have anything to fear from serial killers? The answer is a big fat no. Yet because of the over exposure serial killers get in the media, the public believes that they are in constant danger of being murdered."

This person obviously has no clue. Has she never heard of Ted Bundy, Kenneth Allen McDuff or Arthur Shawcross? These serial killers were repeat offenders once released from prison, though Bundy escaped from prison rather than having been released.

I believe Karla is already exhibiting extremely disturbing behavior.

"On May 29, CBC reported that she chose "Karla Leanne Teale" as her new official name - "Teale" being the name that Paul Bernardo had adopted in honor of the fictional serial killer "Martin Thiel" in the film Criminal Law." If that fact alone isn't a big 'ole red flag, then I don't know what is.
The conditions of her parole dictate that she have no contact with violent criminals. Yet, "her boyfriend, Jean-Paul Gerbet, is housed in the same prison for the 1998 killing of his ex-girlfriend."
While in prison Karla engaged in a homosexual relationship with another inmate. It is believed by her female companion that she only "pretended to be her lover in order to get lingerie and a computer." Obviously, Karla had ulterior motives for pursuing the relationship; she simply saw it as a way to fulfill her lusts: sexual and material. It appears that Karla is highly manipulative, not a good sign given her heinous background.

Karla has a degree in psychology and I believe she has fooled Dr. Sharon Williams, her psychologist. Dr. Williams has determined that Karla does not fit the profile of a psychopath. Other professionals who have reviewed her case, but have not interviewed Karla personally, disagree and believe that she is indeed a psychopath. I believe she is still a potential threat to society.

Heartbreaking

2005-07-28T09:09:00.000-05:00

Yesterday my husband was talking to a friend of ours and learned some disturbing and heartbreaking news. Our friend's friend, whom we've met, has an 18 year old son who has just told him he is a homosexual.

I'm literally stunned. Somehow, I knew what my husband was going to say before he said it. Still, when he said it, it went through me like an electrical shock. It made me sick to my stomach. This poor child. I'm sure I have met this young man because I believe I have met all of this man's children. I have so many questions. This has not been a good year for this family and to have this added tragedy is putting extreme pressure on them all. So please pray for them. Thanks.

Was the Christian Voice Wrong?

2005-07-18T20:27:00.000-05:00

On the 6th of July, Glue Guy posted about a controversy going on between two UK entities: The Co-operative Bank (TCB) and the Christian Voice (CV). TCB accuses the CV of spreading hate speech. Glue Guy asks some pertinent questions concerning this controversy, namely did the CV act vituperatively when dealing with the issue of homosexuality and homosexual rights?

Below is an excerpt of TCB’s press release of the charges they claim against the CV. I have also included an excerpt of the CV’s response to the bank’s accusations.

Press Release: The Co-operative Bank

The Co-operative Bank asked Christian Voice to close its account on the basis of the hateful and offensive statements they peddle, and their aim of stigmatising people who are homosexual. Their statements go far beyond the view held by some Christians that 'homosexuality is a sin:' alleging that homosexuals are 'formed' via paedophilia (and that they will in turn propagate this further), and that their innate 'corruptness' renders them unfit for the police force.

Many Christians and church groups have welcomed our stand and noted that this organisation is not the "voice" of Christianity. Freedom of speech requires a climate of respect and tolerance if it is to operate optimally. We accept that everyone has the right to freedom of thought on religion; however, we do not believe that this entitles people to actively encourage and practice discrimination. Like other extremists, this group would claim the benefits of freedom of speech for themselves, whilst seeking to deny them to others via the creation of a climate of hate.

Press Release: Christian Voice

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today: "The decision from the Co-operative Bank fits a pattern where politically-correct bully-boys try to attack Christian organisations, Christian symbols, the Bible, and in the case of Jerry Springer the Opera and BBC2, even the person of our Saviour."

Stephen Green retorted: "Of course we make ‘discriminatory pronouncements on grounds of sexual orientation’. We have been criticising homosexual rights ever since we started eleven years ago. Standing up for righteousness is what we do. In fact you could say there are dozens of such pronouncements in my own book "The Sexual Dead-End", which was published in 1992. It is a conviction of our Christian faith that homosexual activity is sinful; in fact that it is an abomination in the eyes of God. It is also a conviction of ours that the Lord Jesus shed His precious blood to forgive the sins of all who put their trust in Him, including sexually-active homosexuals.

Glue Guy says:

"It sounds on the surface like the Christian Voice has become a noisy gong. I Corinthians 13:1"

Glue Guy is correct in that Christians should speak out against sin in a spirit of love and I can see where he, and others, might think that "on the surface" the CV didn't act in a spirit of love; however, it has been my experience that the politically correct crowd or those actively living in overt sin are quick to charge those who expose and speak out against such lifestyles with being hateful and unchristian. The fact is that sometimes the truth hurts. I saw truth in what the CV was being accused of saying, however, I highly doubted that the CV actually stated it in a vituperative manner. So on I went to search and read in context what the CV had to say about homosexuality.

TCB stated that the CV "alleg[es] that homosexuals are 'formed' via paedophilia (and that they will in turn propagate this further)...". The CV wrote an essay, Britain In Sin, which outlines Britain’s social problems and how they relate to the Ten Commandments. Below is what the CV said about homosexuality and pedophilia in context. As you will see, their statements about pedophilia were neither hateful nor disrespectful, but rather these statements are the very sad truth of the matter. In their Family Law section of the Seventh Commandment, the CV was merely asserting known facts for one of the many causes of homosexuality.

Britain In Sin
See: THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT

8. Family Law Act 1996
Around 50% of men cannot expect to bring up their own children. Household size has declined dramatically as families have split up. An additional demand on housing will arise not just from the increased number of smaller homes needed to house people when families split up. Children are and will be increasingly leaving home after the introduction of new adult male mothers' "boy-friends". One of the many complex roots of homosexuality in males is an emotionally distant or absent father. Another, in both males and females, is sexual abuse. It is bvecoming [sic] well-established that homosexual men and other abusers seek out divorced and single mothers and move in to gain access to the children. The cycle is then repeated, or the child moves out, or both.

In 2003, the CV wrote a 16 page exposé, Homosexuality and the Police, on the gay agenda, the Gay Police Association and the police departments' (England's and Wales') complicity in advancing the gay agenda. I encourage everyone to read for themselves what the CV has to say (I've provided a few excerpts) because they are right on the mark. Not only should TCB be applauding the CV for their exposition of the deleterious effects of homosexuals and their agenda, but they should also be demanding the police force rethink their position on the matter. Woe to them who call evil good and good evil!

Homosexuality and the Police
See: Recruitment Policy

As a result of pressure from ‘gay activists’ many if not all police forces now place recruitment adverts for practising homosexuals in the ‘gay press’. This is a decision driven by political correctness and expediency, but is it wise in pure policing terms?
Homosexual police are involved in some of the most disgusting perversions imaginable; how can they bring clean hands to any police investigation?
Homosexual police are corrupted by what they do; how can they investigate cases of corruption?
Their whole life is lived in denial; how can they be expected to tell the truth in Court?
Homosexual police are likely to seek sexual encounters in public conveniences and in the open (most homosexual men do); are they going to take part in exercises against ‘cottaging’ and ‘cruising’?
Their sexual behaviour is deviant and indecent; how can they uphold public decency and morality?
The police are supposed to be impartial; does the deliberate recruitment of shamelessly homosexual men and women explain the recent explosion of cases brought against Gospel preachers and pro-life campaigners? (emphasis added)
Many homosexual men will have been interfered with at a young age, and be sexually attracted to boys of around that age as a result; are homosexual police going to be exempted from investigations into paedophile activities?
The police serve the monarch of a constitutionally Christian country; how does the police force square that fact with the recruitment of officers who commit acts which are an abomination in the eyes of Almighty God?
See: Weakness
The case of Brian Paddick is an object lesson in why homosexuals should not be in the police service.

See: Sex Offender Policeman Gets His Job Back
A ‘gay’ policeman sacked after being convicted of indecency with a boy of 16 got his job back.

See: Sexual Abuse
Another route into homosexuality is that of being sexually young. Here, too, divorce often plays a part, when an unrelated a [sic] sexual designs on children moves in with the mother (who normally has custody today). Identification with the abuser (the Stockholm syndrome) leaves abused child looking for similar sexual experiences in adulthood. Superintendent Michael Hames, now retired from the Scotland Yard Squad, said that homosexual men are attracted to boys of a similar age to that at which they were first abused - not that they ever saw it, from their perspective - as abuse. We are all different. The same emotional trauma which turns one young woman to seek sexual satisfaction amongst her own sex will leave another completely unscathed. The lack of a father for one boy may be of little importance - for another it may leave scars of resentment, and for another, he will be found seeking consolation in a public lavatory. You would need a heart of stone not to weep for those caught up in homosexuality. Those who portray homosexuality as simply an expression of diversity, or as natural and normal, and thereby lead others astray, will be called to judgment at a greater court than any on this earth.

I thought the piece was written in a respectful, civil and loving manner. Actually, they were being very kind and only touched the surface of what truly goes on behind the scenes within the homosexual community. My only complaint is that the format was a bit tabloidish. I can only surmise that the CV wanted to get their point across as to how appalled they were at the whole "Gay Pride" march (especially in police uniform), which in and of itself is tabloidish, and they wanted to get peoples' attention. I'm not that familiar with the CV's publishing practices, but their essay on Britain In Sin was done very tastefully, in my humble opinion.

The point is, the information needed to be exposed because most people are not aware of the true depravity of the gay lifestyle for all they see is the loveable and zany Jack and the level-headed and witty Will on Will & Grace; or the ubiquitous, misunderstood, warm, nice, well-meaning “gay” person who just wants to express his/her “love” (there is no love involved in this lifestyle, but rather it is full on lust...big difference) on any one of America’s sitcoms, dramas or movies; or they may have a gay friend or two who appear on the surface to be moral and upstanding citizens. I have gay friends and acquaintances, too, and, for the most part, they are very nice, intelligent, talented, community-minded people. Some I have had the opportunity to get know a little more personally and am privy to their personality traits, relationships and lifestyles and they all have serious problems: psychologically, emotionally and relationally.

Also, I have done extensive (though not exhaustive) research on homosexuality: the pathology, the lifestyle and the agenda; therefore, I am well aware of the collusion between the so-called “scientific” world, the psychiatric world, the liberal ideological world and the secular media world and their efforts to advance the homosexual agenda. Their stategy is very clever, methodical and subtle. Unfortunately, the agenda appears to be working quite well and is right on track pushing full steam ahead. Why, even the church has jumped on board! Contrary to popular belief the lifestyle is far from innocuous and should be exposed and rejected at every turn.

It is understandable that the homosexual community would try to distance themselves or secrete such facts as named in the CV’s article, but it absolutely amazes me that there are those in the heterosexual and CHRISTIAN communities who would be willing accomplices in the cover-up of such information. I realize that some in the Christian community are misguided wherein they believe that they should not speak out passionately or forcefully against sin, namely homosexuality, because they misunderstand the biblical meaning of "love". They also woefully misunderstand Jesus’ teachings and his example because they seem to forget that he also rebuked those who refused to repent for their sin. The reason Christians are to speak out (in true biblical love) and must do so is to save souls from hell and to save society from corruption. Yes, corruption.

Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil companions corrupt good morals.

There is a balance to everything that God teaches in His word. Yes, we are to do everything in the spirit of love, but speaking the truth in love isn’t always pleasant no matter how hard one tries to be civil and gentle about it. The word of God offends, it divides and separates.

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.

Jesus loved the sinner, but did not tolerate the sin. When he encountered those in sin one-on-one he addressed their sin and told them to “go and sin no more.” Christians often mistake the love of God to mean the toleration of God, but the Bible clearly teaches that we are not to tolerate sin. Look how Jesus reacted to those whom he had encountered who did not receive Him and repent of their sin. He didn’t candy-coat how He felt about their rejection of Him. Jesus' motto was grace to the humble and law to the proud.

Luke 10:10-16 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Not once did I see any epithets from the CV in either of their articles. I saw a balance of love and outrage, concern and correction. I saw the voice of reason and compassion and an avenue for reconciliation. The CV’s article would not have been a point of debate in the Christian community or society as a whole just 25 years ago; instead, most would have been just as outraged as the CV and taken action against the PD. We’ve allowed the homosexual agenda to creep up on us while only a few in the church have set the trumpet to their mouths, sounding the alarm. The majority have effectively ignored the warnings and many have foolishly jumped the fence in support of the homosexual movement in erroneous answer to WWJD? The church is to be a light and to preserve the ways of the Lord not abandon them.

Matthew 5:13-14
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an
hill cannot be hid.

The CV is doing what it is supposed to be doing. Britain started out as a Christian nation and this organization is merely trying to be a light and to be that salt so that their country doesn’t plummet into total depravity with its justice system paving the way. It may well be too late, but at least they are trying and are doing what God has commanded His people to do.

Soon it will be against the law to speak out against homosexuality in Britain, and America is probably next. Recently, Christians who were protesting peacefully at a gay rally (supported by our tax dollars!) in Philadelphia were arrested. (Chrisitans were met with vulgar acts and threats of violence from the rally participants.) Their crime? Hate! What was so hateful? Holding up signs with scripture on them. *tragedy of all tragedies!* Thankfully, the charges were dropped, but these people were inconvenienced by having to spend time in jail. It appears that it won't be long before those charges will stick so we should be praying and taking action in hopes that that day never comes to fruition. Speaking out against homosexuality is already illegal in Sweden and Canada.

I think the CV has summed up their article rather well and I’ll let them speak for themselves.

See: Sexual Healing

Becoming homosexual may not be a matter of choice, but staying homosexual certainly is. Christian healing - or the power of God, who is Almighty, can resolve the underlying pathologies and the homosexual life can be left behind. No one has to stay homosexual. There are men and women alive today who have walked away from homosexuality, dealing a deathblow to the bizarre idea that homosexuals are ‘born that way’. Although persecuted by homosexual activists because of the challenge they pose, Christian healing ministries lead the way. A spiritual force keeps some people homosexual. Others may leave each healing session only to go back to homosexual friends, who think they are mad to want to change.

The belief in a superior spiritual force, in the form of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is also a personal saviour, friend and helper, is invaluable in the process of repentance and healing. One man said: “I came to crisis as I realised that a homosexual lifestyle was not what God had planned for anyone’s life. Jesus made it clear through His example and teaching that people should remain single without sexual attachments or be faithful within marriage. I knew I had to change my life and go God’s way. As a 'gay' person that meant I was prepared to be single for the rest of my life. I found that, through His Spirit, God gave me the power to overcome temptation AND He has done what I thought impossible - God has so changed my life that I am now married with a family!”

See: Possible To Break Away

“Don’t get me wrong, the Christian life isn’t all plain sailing At times it can be very hard, but believe me, following Jesus is the best life there is! It’s worth giving up relationships and exciting experiences that are wrong, because the experience of God’s love, forgiveness and power is far more exciting - and it lasts forever!” Another letter, this time from a teenager: “This is just to let those of you who think they may be ‘gay’ know that it is not irreversible - I was, and am now well on the way to ‘recovery’! I am going to be 17 in a matter of days, and this has been a very turbulent year for me - sometimes in complete despair because of my enjoying looking at other guys, I have managed to turn that around, admittedly not completely yet... but I can now say I have come from being ‘gay’ to ‘bisexual’ and, being Christian, I hope soon to be solely straight.” “Christianity and homosexuality do not mix - the Bible says so, it was written by God, who loves us all, no matter what - if we really love Him we will not practise homosexuality- God did not make us to be homosexual, which means it is possible to break away from. Why would God make it possible for us to be ‘gay’ and then condemn it?”

See: Loving the Sinner

Who loves a homosexual more? He who encourages him to continue in what the Bible calls ‘an abomination’ or he who warns him and calls him to repent? The Bible is quite clear. Way back in Leviticus, in fact just between the two chapters which condemn sexual perversion, we read that love for our neighbour is equated with warning him: “Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. ...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. I am the LORD.” (Lev. 19:17-18) “Loving the Lord God means hating evil: “Ye that love the LORD, hate evil” (Psalm 97:10a) The same thought is in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (Eph. 5:11)

See: Reprove and Rebuke

In fact, if we do not warn our neighbour, a terrible fate awaits us: The Prophet Ezekiel was given this chilling word: “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” (Eze. 3:18)

The Apostle Paul writes to Timothy, an elder of the early church: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” (2 Tim. 4:2) He uses similar words to the Christians in Thessalonica: “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.”. (1 Thes. 5:14)

God uses us as an instrument of His mercy: “Say unto them, “As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways.” (Eze. 33:11)

See: Joy In Heaven

The Lord Jesus expresses the same thought: “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7)

One young man whom Jesus met thought he was right with God, but out of His love for the man, the Lord gave him a difficult challenge: “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, “One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” (Mark 10:2 1)

Warning a sinner is never easy, and warning a homosexual goes against the spirit of the age - indeed if Christians are not vigilant it could become illegal. There are always those who love the praise of men more than the praise of God. (John 12:43) “But the friends of the world are the enemies of God’s” as the Apostle James writes (Jas 4:4). James also writes of the reward for saving a sinner from death: “Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner
from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (Jas. 5:20)

See: My Brother’s Keeper

Those who confirm homosexuals in their pathological and perverted lifestyle show no love or compassion according to the Biblical witness. They are like heartless Cain crying: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Let us pray that the church will become so strong in its love for God and our fellow man that it is willing, even in these dark days, to minister the healing and saving power of Christ to those in need. Let us pray for the courage to stand up for Christ Jesus and the truth at this time when even Chief Police Officers cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, clean and unclean, pure and corrupt. And let us pray that our leaders will turn back to God and lead our nation back to the paths of righteousness.

The Original Intent of Our Founding Fathers Part I

2005-07-05T02:01:00.000-05:00

I hope everyone had a great day in celebrating our country's independence. In belated honor of that great day I'd like to begin a series on the original intent behind the First Amendment and what our Founders had envisioned for our country, namely the separation of church and state and the role Christianity is to play in our society. Our Founders never dreamed that our religious freedoms would be as horribly stripped away as they have been in recent decades.

Revisionist historians have effectively beguiled the citizenry into believing that religion should be kept out of the public square and nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, that belief has, over the years and for various reasons, helped to erode many of our Christian freedoms, but I think the church is finally waking up to the fact that they have made a grave error and are beginning to fight back. I hope to spark a flame in those reading to do further research on the subject so that they, too, can join in the fight to reclaim our religious freedoms. We need Christians to learn the truth about our nation's rich Christian heritage so that they can be equipped to share their knowledge of the truth with others. Let's hope it is not too late.

When studying the founding documents, debates and writings of the founders, et al we must be careful not to read them anachronistically. For example the word "religion" had a different definition than the definition of religion today which includes atheism and humanism. Depending upon the context, the Founders held to three distinct connotations of the word "religion":

Christianity
A particular denomination within Chrsitianity
A fundamental set of beliefs other than Christianity (e.g., Muslimism, Judaism, etc.)

Religion: [I]ncludes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of His will to man, and in man’s obligation to obey His commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life with the practice of all moral duties. . . . [T]he practice of moral duties without a belief in a Divine Lawgiver, and without reference to His will or commands, is not religion.--The American Dictionary of the English Language 1828

Keeping this in mind is a must to properly interpret the original intent of the founders when addressing the subject of religion. Revisionists have been very effective at spreading their misinformation by reinterpreting the writings of the Founders to bolster the idea that government cannot promote religion or promote one relgion over another.

The Founders in no way repudiated religion in government and felt that guidance from God was needed in running a successful government, thus, the enactment of prayer each day in both Houses of Congress. They believed that true religion [the Christian religion] and morality were the support of a just government, but believed that the federal government had no jurisdiction in the establishment of religion [a particular Christian denomination], nor should there be a federal religious test; they believed these decisions should be left up to the States via the people. In fairly recent years, the religious test ban in Article VI has been grossly misapplied and misinterpreted.

The Founders believed in religious freedom and the right to worship the deity according to the dictates of one's conscience. The Founders believed that the government should not intermeddle in the affairs of the church meaning that they could not regulate or dictate the operation of the church. The Founders did not discourage, but rather encouraged, government aid (notice I said, AID, not taxation) in the propagation of the Christian religion because they knew that a religious and moral people would be a great support to our government. They also believed that the Christian religion was the one true religion or the best of all religions or both because of the teachings of Jesus Christ. They also believed that the Christian God was a God of liberty and that the people should learn of the Christian religion.

The Founders did not set out to form a federal religious theocracy (the subject of religion was to be left up to the states) and were very careful not to allow the country to turn into one, but they also did not want the government to be able to prohibit religion; thus, the First Amendment. True history (how sad that we now have to qualify history by preceding it with the word "true") speaks for itself. We were a Christian nation at our founding and our Founders did NOT prohibit the free exercise of religion within the confines of government. I will set about to prove this in future articles.

Lost Liberty Hotel

2005-07-01T03:32:00.000-05:00

Eminent Domain abuses are happening far too often and this decision made by the Supreme Court is paving the way for more abuse. Americans should be writing their representatives and demanding that our judiciary, even at the highest level, be held accountable for their rank disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

While I don't agree with Mr. Clements' tactics Justice Souter will be reaping what he has sown; that is, if this proposal is approved and comes to fruition. Though I must admit, the name of the hotel and cafe are quite clever. I saw Mr. Clements on Fox News the night before last and he said that he would be more than happy to serve Justice Souter some Crow Pie. :-)

Dawn's Deliberations Copyright © 2005

Scientific Hubris

2005-06-16T14:06:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Terri Schiavo’s autopsy report was released. We learned that Terri’s brain was severely atrophied and that she actually was in what doctors call a Persistent Vegetative State or PVS. Terri, they say, was also blind as a result of her deteriorated brain.

Now please do not get me wrong. I believe that there is an absoluteness to true science. I do not, however, believe that scientists, in this case medical doctors, know all there is to know about the brain. True, we have come a long way baby, but there is still much to be learned about the brain.

It has been reported that Terri would cry when her family had to leave her. She was known to have, at times, followed orders such as squeezing her eyes shut and opening them wide on command. According to nurses, she was also reactive to pain.

I saw the videos and heard the audio to go along with those videos and it did not appear to me that Terri was in PVS. At times, she responded appropriately to the people around her. She laughed at their teasing, she tried to talk to her mother when her mother was talking to her, she followed a balloon as it passed in front of her. She smiled when her mother was speaking to her. I also noted that Terri did not appear to drool, which told me that she could probably be spoon fed.

Dr. Hammesfahr’s report confirms what I felt I had observed with my own eyes in the videos released to the press. These videos were released by Mr. Schindler (Terri’s father) defying a court order to not release them. That the courts did not want these videos released to the general public spoke volumes to me.

In my humble opinion, it is terribly arrogant on the part of doctors to insist that a patient is in a vegetative state and deem cognitive responses as mere reflexive action. Obviously a good portion of Terri Schiavo’s brain was dead, but she was not in a vegetative state. The part of the brain which enables a person to have sight was dead, but there have been cases in which a person’s brain miraculously found a different path within the brain to regain their sight. I think that quite possibly this was the case with Terri. Like I said, science still has much to learn about the brain and I think they should humble themselves when the case warrants it.

Dawn's Deliberations Copyright © 2005

Purpose

2005-06-16T08:49:00.000-05:00

The purpose of this blog is to express my thoughts and opinions on a variety of topics. It may also include experiences of everyday life. I am also hoping it will get me motivated to write on a regular basis in an effort to improve my grammar and punctuation. I welcome all points of view, but will not tolerate ad hominem or bad language. I reserve the right to delete posts which I feel cross the line into these two categories.