Dungan's Deliberations

Thor: Heaven Is Greater

2011-05-30T19:57:00.000-07:00

Went to see Thor 3D this weekend. Without being ridiculous, let me say that this movie inspired me to think about how awesome heaven must be. The main setting of this movie is Asgard, a other-dimensional world located away from earth with golden and rainbow streets and running rivers (based on Norse mythology). The visuals make this movie as much as anything else, whether acting or whatever. It has epic settings.

when I used to think of heaven, I thought of a realm in the clouds. However, the Bible portrays heaven as God's dwelling, and in the end, His dwelling is with men. Therefore, at the end of time, the 3rd heaven comes down to earth, transforming earth and reclaiming every good gift of God given throughout history as a part of the newly transformed creation. Much as Asgard was pristine in this film, yet a dwelling place, so heaven will ultimately be a place that incorporates, for humans, parts of all God has created for his own glory. Except the sea, there is no more sea. Otherwise, knowlege of all kinds, music, architecture, clothing, banquets, social gatherings, technology...all become part of the beauty of the final dwelling of God and men. Given that the gods of Asgard in this movie are but super-powerful beings, I conclude that Asgard as visualized in Thor should be but a stepping stone to make us think how wonderful that heaven must be.

Post-millennialism: The Church Reigning in the Millennium (that may or may not be 1000 years long)

2009-10-30T19:57:00.000-07:00

I am really optimistic that I'll actually be able to tell you every specific about Bible prophecy when we are done. I'll be able to tell you what position is best, and you'll be happy too. You'll tell others, and then everyone will know how to interpret Revelation and that pesky Olivet Discourse without hassle. The knowledge will precede over the globe, and all other prophecy-hawkers, like Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsay, will be out of business.

...but, my positive attitude in the opening paragraph is similar to the positive attitude of post-millennialists regarding the Gospel and the future. Post-millennialists believe in the triumph of the Gospel and the Church over the earth. Christ will return to a near-converted earth. Christianity will triumph. Some believe in a final rebellion at the end of history, but a great many modern post-mil Bible scholars do not. Here is a chart to give you a comparison with the first two positions we covered: dispensational premillennialism and amillennialism:

Before I go too far, let me back up. Post-millennialism (as I mentioned in my earlier post) shares much in common with amillennialism. It is a response to the difficulty encountered in trying to understand the early church's general perception that Christ's coming was to be soon, when in fact, it didn't happen (or it didn't happen the way they envisioned). See my three reasons for amillennialism's development in the earlier post if you can't remember :)

Most modern post-mil scholars are positive about the victory of the church at the end of this age. This was the minority position of the church throughout history. Most scholars throughout history believed there would be a final rebellion--this is why I said post-millennialism is a first-cousin to amillennialism. Look at the charts again:

There is just not much difference. Amillennialism's scheme of history goes like this:

1-4: See my dispensationalism blog
5. The Kingdom of God was initiated with the history of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom is the "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16) encompassing Jew and Gentile.

6. The church age will last an indefinite period.
a. Some interpreters see an increase of evil at the end of this age; some don't.
b. Some interpreters see a personal anti-christ; others do not.
c. Some interpreters see Israel turn largely to God near the end; some don't.

7. Christ will return at the end of the church age, judge all, and initiate eternity.

Postmillennialism's scheme of history goes like this:

1-4: See my dispensationalism blog
5. The Kingdom of God was initiated with the history of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom is the "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16) encompassing Jew and Gentile.

6. The church age will last an indefinite period, during which the church will triumph, converting massive numbers of people.
a. Some interpreters see an increase of evil at the end of this age; some don't.
b. Some interpreters see a personal anti-christ; others do not.
c. Some interpreters see Israel turn largely to God near the end; some don't.

7. Christ will return at the end of the victorious church age, judge all, and initiate eternity.

I am oversimplifying, but the difference of the victorious church is first and foremost difference here. Its also good to bear in mind at this point that dispensationalism views the reign of Christ on earth as a literal 1000 years on earth, while amillennialism and postmillennialism view it as an indefinite period of time within the present church age. The weaknesses of postmillennialism mirror that of amillennialism.

That is not the interesting stuff about post-millennialism though. The interesting thing about this system is the two main ways in which its holders have the interpreted the victory of the church to come about. These two ways are "revivalist" and "Christian reconstructionist."

Many Puritans were revivalists and believed the Gospel, as preached in the Reformation, would go to the ends of the earth, and covert huge numbers in the world. One would think they were basing this assumption on the success of the Reformation and the triumph of the evangelical Gospel in various forms of Protestantism. I honestly do not know. That's another blog. The point is that this is a bottom-up approach to converting the world in this system.

Christian Reconstructionism has emerged in the last century or so, and it takes the opposite tack--namely that Christians must take over the government, the arts, education, and all walks of society. Christians, instructed by the law of God in the OT and NT are the most capable of logically building a society in God's world, and will eventually do so, taking over every facet by entering the darkened world and lighting and rebirthing its every activity rooted in the Law of God and the Gospel of Christ. This position is called "theonomy"--rule of God.

Which ever of these positions a postmillennialist takes, they will be hated by the world! For the world hates Gospel preachers and Christians meddling in society. It's interesting to think about the implications...

Next time...historical premillennialism!

PS Most postmillennialists are Presbyterians.

How Can Catholics Believe It?

2009-10-30T19:54:00.000-07:00

Peter was married (Matt. 8:14-17; 1 Cor. 9:5). He was, according to Catholics, also the first Pope. If he was married why does the church enforce celibacy on priests?

New baby: Gabriel Aaron Dungan (click on picture to enlarge)

2009-10-23T19:48:00.000-07:00

Bible Students: Have You Heard About Robert Crumb's "Genesis?"

2009-10-21T20:38:00.000-07:00

If you don't know who Robert Crumb is, and aren't that familiar with comic books, just know that Crumb is the artist behind the lascivious "Fritz the Cat" cartoons and others. Here is a picture of Fritz:

Well, sorry, I didn't publish one because they are so often porno in nature. That's what Crumb is known for, anyways, in "Fritz" as well as his other comics. He is something of an underground phenomenon in US comic history, producing some X-rated stuff that is really bad--but...

Now he has taken on the book of Genesis from the Bible. And here is the amazing thing--he doesn't rake it through the mud of satire, he really tries to portray the text as it reads (with a feminist/liberal sensibility worked in very cleverly in some parts). This is really bizarre. Crumb doesn't believe the Bible, but he didn't think he could top the over-the-top stories of Genesis! To him, (even though the he doesn't believe the Bible is Truth) Truth is stranger than fiction! Here is a shot from his "Genesis."

If you know Ben Witherington (Asbury Seminary prof; contributor to Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ" (I think, might be "Case for Faith), he has this to say:

Now however this super-lapsed Catholic has decided to depict scenes from all 50 chapters of Genesis, with the emphasis on verbatim. Those of us who knew a bit about his snarky past were holding our collective breath, but Rabbi Simcha Weinstein, author of the well-titled book Up,Up, and Oi Vey (the history of how Jews had influence on the creation of fictional super-heroes) reassures us that Crumb has not given us a crumby treatment of Genesis. Of course the literal depiction of murder, incest, rape, and a host of the other things that go on in Genesis itself is enough to curdle one's milk and curl one's hair. Hide the babies and pack up the old ladies. But then alas, the Bible is hardly a G or PG book--- it tells it like it is, even when it comes to all our human falleness. It is thus not a surprise that in the 224 pages of this book (out today and published by W.W. Norton) some of these pen and ink drawings reflect the sensual and violent character of some of these stories. This is a comic book my Mom would not have let me read in the 9th grade! Indeed she would have said 'Exodus with this Genesis'.

I might order this book...well, not until investigating it some more!

The Last Word on the Last Days: Amillennialism (No-literal 1000 year Reign of Christ)

2009-10-08T20:44:00.000-07:00

I laughed when I started this series as a personal response to the title I decided on. The title is preposterous. However unlikely, I might actually figure out which eschatology is right...not! What I can do is describe them for you and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. My research into Amillennialism is not extensive, and I'll give you my resources at the end. Let's get started.

This is a basic premillennial dispensational view of Bible history:

This is a basic amillenial view of Bible history:

Doesn't the amillenial picture look barren beside even this simplistic dispensational chart? That is deceptive. Amillennial views are complex (especially as their adherents attempt to prove them from scripture). The basic idea is not complex, but the scriptural exegesis is complex. The basic presuppositions are as follows:

1. Scripture pointed early Christians to a soon return of Christ in glory (see Matt. 10:23, 26:64; Rom. 13:11-12; I Cor. 7:31, 10:11; Phil. 4:5; James 5:8-9; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 1:1,3,11, 22:6-7,10,12,20)(Sproul). This list doesn't include yet another text Sproul cites, namely Matthew 24:34, which seems to say that the generation of people standing there at Jesus' utterance would see Him return in glory (also in the other synoptic Gospels).

2. Christ did not come in that generation. Therefore, either the NT writers did not mean that His coming was soon, or they did and His coming was not the end of the world under the conditions we envision when we adopt the "Left Behind" mindset regarding the study of the end times. RC Sproul argues extensively for the latter option, that is, that many Christians have misunderstood the prophetic literature concerning Christ's Second Coming.

3. Therefore, all Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the early churches expectation of the soon return of Christ in glory, and how that coming might have been fulfilled in history, or not yet fulfilled in history.

OK, those are the basic ideas behind amillennialism--the assumptions that it starts with. People have held them since early in church history. At first, many believers where premillennial, then, when Christ did not come early in the first millennium, believers began to look for other ways to interpret the prophetic Scriptures and amillennialism was born. St. Augustine held this position, as did several of the Reformers, and many of the Puritans.

The scheme of events is as follows:

Numbers 1-4 coincide with the Dispensational View in the main.

5. The Kingdom of God was initiated with the history of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom is the "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16) encompassing Jew and Gentile.

6. The church age will last an indefinite period.
a. Some interpreters see an increase of evil at the end of this age; some don't.
b. Some interpreters see a personal anti-christ; others do not.
c. Some interpreters see Israel turn largely to God near the end; some don't.

7. Christ will return at the end of the church age, judge all, and initiate eternity.

Simple, right? Well, no...not when one begans to try to understand how this simple scheme comes from Scripture. Amillennialists are divided on their interpretations of the Olivet Discourse, the Epistles, and the Revelation. There is also significant divergence in their interpretation of the OT prophetic books. In fact, I will not address it here, but post-millennialism is an off-shoot of amillennialism! Probably the main control in their interpretation goes back to the presuppositions I told you about--the NT expected a soon coming of Christ, it didn't happen, therefore the Scriptures concerning it must be interpreted differently than in a literal historical manner. Some schemes of interpretation follow:

1. Plain amillennialism: All the scriptures on tribulation and the antichrist are fulfilled throughout church history. Revelation is a symbolic interpretation of God's judgments throughout the church age. As I mentioned before, there is much division in the amill camp over what Scriptures represent what historical trends. Therefore, most plain amillennialists view much of the prophetic Scripture through the lens of symbolism (ie the loosing of the Gospel as the binding of Satan throughout the Church Age (Matt. 12:29; Luke 10:17-20)). However, plain amillennialists get very literal when they come to interpreting scriptures concerning the final judgment and the eternal state (ie a bodily return of Christ, Christ defeats all His enemies, Christ literally raises all the bodies of the dead, unites soul and body, judges all people, and places people in eternal heaven or hell).

2. Moderate preterist amillennialism: The Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) is not symbolic in whole...it deals with the end of the Jewish Age. Jesus prediction of His coming in power was fulfilled in the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70AD (Sproul's view). This is proved by Luke's account of the Discourse in which invading armies are described as "desolation come near," which coincides with the "abomination of desolation" found in the other synoptic Gospels. Sproul with others also use Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Seutonius as historical sources to show the astronomical signs in Jesus Olivet teachings happened in or around 70AD. The NT letters and the Revelation refer to church history, but also to future events. This view gives more exact fulfillment to Jesus' words than the plain amill position.

3. Full-preterism: All the events in scriptural prophecy are already fulfilled in AD70. This view is the most problematic (with moderate preterism sharing some of these difficulties). Some problems are as follows: 1) The return of Christ as found in Matthew 24 and other texts seems not difficult to discern: "For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day." 2) The early church did not recognize 70AD as a fulfillment of the return of Christ in this way 3) Jesus resurrection being the pattern, it is hard to believe the spiritual resurrection of people in the new birth and the resurrection described in Matthew 24 and other scriptures are describing the same thing. 4) The Lord's Supper is described as an ordinance kept "until He comes."

The problems go on and on.

Some final thoughts...

1. Basic amillennialism is very appealing to many people. It has a long history, does not run into the problems of preterism, and basically gives the student of prophecy a lot of room for ignorance and wiggle room for interpretation with its highly symbolic view of Scripture. This means it also lacks precision and begs the question concerning how much credit it gives the writers of scripture when they reference seemingly literal events, time periods, etc.

2. All forms of preterism try to answer the problem of time references in the NT by relating 70AD to prophecy. We've already looked at the problems there. Enough said.

3. Compared to dispensationalism or premillennialism, which do convincingly relate prophecy to history in many ways, amillennialism seems a stretch with its resort to symbolism for most of NT prophecy. The best example is the millennium itself. It is obvious from the text of Revelation 20 that the millennium follows the defeat of Antichrist. Given that Antichrist appears to be a literal historical figure of immense proportion who has yet to arise (Paul's epistle to the Thessalonians), it seems unlikely to say that Antichrist has been defeated and the church is reigning in the millennium with Christ at the present. Furthermore, none of the world-wide phenomenon associated with Antichrist's reign appear to have been fulfilled.

That's it for amillennialism. It's a complicated system. It has its benefits, but it too suffers problems of interpretation and historical fulfillment. On to postmillenialism next time!

Soli Deo Gloria

Greg

Sources

"The Last Days According to Jesus" RC Sproul
John Stevenson Bible Study Page (http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/jts.html)
"Prophecy and the Church" Oswald T. Allis

PS

Amillennialists could be any denomination. From what I've read, its main adherents are Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and some Baptists (I'm sure I missed some).

The Last Word on the Last Days: Part 1--Dispensationalism (click on the chart to enlarge!)

2009-09-28T20:52:00.000-07:00

Looks pretty crazy doesn't it? Before I say a word about Dispensational Premillennial Pre-Tribulation Rapture Eschatology, I thought I'd give you an idea what I'm up against. Charts like this are common among folks who believe this Left Behind style end-times scheme. They are necessary because the plotlines are so stinkin' complicated that you have to write them down to get a grip on their immensity. I'm going to stew this chart down to a tender seven or so points that I hope you can digest them, much like cooking up some good fresh green beans so they're easier to chew on.

Here goes:

1. In the OT God selected Abraham as the father of the Jews, to be His own nation. God made promises to Abe and His Seed that have never been revoked about giving him the land of Canaan, the covenant of circumcision, and about Abe being a blessing or a curse to all mankind.

2. The result of this was the Jewish nation, called forth to God's true worship from their pagan environment in Egypt, to whom He gave the land of Canaan, His Law, and many promises.

3. The Jews went through periods of disobedience and obedience throughout their history, with God saying that He would eventually establish His eternal Kingdom, involving the Jews, at some point in the future. The prophets elaborated on Deuteronomy during this time as it pertained to a future prophet, like Moses, whom the Jews called Messiah, who would inaugurate the Kingdom and deliver them. The prophet Daniel alluded to a "stone cut without hands" (Christ the Messiah) in his visions that would destroy all the empires of the world and rule. The prophet Daniel specifically foretold that 483 years would occur from his time till Messiah's coming, and that at the end of this time (69 prophetic weeks), the prince/prophet/Messiah would die and a nation would destroy the Jews. The 70th week would see a future destroyer who would attack God's people and then be destroyed. The "stone cut without hands" would be the only Kingdom left--Messiah and His Kingdom (interpreted to be only the Jews by some Jews).

4. Christ came to the Jews in the Roman occupation period of history. He was the promised Messiah and King. The Jews did not understand the Trinity, which they couldn't see in the OT, and furthermore, Jesus did not meet their expectations as a military leader, so they killed Him. What they didn't know is that He was the Messiah, yet His first coming did not start with world conquest, but the conquest of sin, Satan, and death. They couldn't even see His role as a sacrifice for sin, though they killed sacrifices for their sins all the time.

5. The Jews, having rejected the Kingdom, were rejected by God as the main agents of redemption of the world for a while, while the church age, a "mystery" to the OT prophets (Col. 1:26) was revealed to last for an indefinite time. This age could've lasted a few years, but its been now over 2000 years.

6. Most dispensationalists believe that the church age is not the full Kingdom of God described in the OT, therefore, Christ will return suddenly to "rapture" (catch up) the church before He brings tribulation on the earth. During the tribulation, the earth will suffer His wrath 7 years, but He will redeem Israel, which will begin to believe in Him and spread the Gospel like crazy. After His wrath is spent on the agents of Satan, they are consigned to hell, and Satan is locked-up. Those redeemed in the tribulation will unite with the raptured saints on earth in a 1000 year Kingdom under Jesus Christ, ruled from Jerusalem.

7. At the end of 1000 years, Satan is released from bondage for a while to recruit all remaining unbelievers throughout earth who will try to attack Christ. What results is their destruction by fire from heaven, the last judgment and finally, all the redeemed enter the eternal state in a new heaven and earth, while all the unbelieving, evil people are consigned with Satan to eternal hell. So ends the history of sin and death in this world.

*Points are Scripture referenced as follows: 1)Genesis 12-25 2)The rest of the Pentateuch 3)The OT History Books, The Psalms, The Prophets (mainly) 4)The Gospels (note Matthew's many citations of the Prophets and Psalms) 5)The Gospels and Letters
6) The Gospels, Letters, Revelation, The Prophets 7) The Revelation

Wow! Isn't that a mouthful! The issues are too many and too big to address pro-con debate style, so let me make a few remarks and we'll be done.

1. Dispensationalism is highly Scriptural, which is its appeal. It hits on Scripture after Scripture, giving them historical tags. No wonder people like this--its history beforehand. People like that certainty and predictability. They like the fact that every base is covered. However, there are many weak links in the chain, given that many of its scripture-based interpretations are dubious (for fun, try to distinguish Christ's coming in the Rapture vs. His 3rd Coming in Judgment from a simple reading of the NT).

2. Dispensationalism is a new phenomenon. It's about 150 years old. It was invented by the Brethren Christian Community in Europe/Britian and formalized by John Nelson Darby circa 1830. This is not considered a liability by dispensationalists, since the people near the end were expected to understand prophecy better, since the times of fulfillment were at hand. However, this leaves the question: "Why did no one come to this view before 1830?" It's not easy to answer why some enlightened interpreter of Scripture didn't come to it earlier. (Also see Revelation 1:1)

3. Dispensationalism also carries the baggage of its namesake--the Dispensational periods included in the original scheme. These aided in distinguishing periods of history, since dispensationalists make radical differences in between different periods of redemption history, the biggest being Jewish Kingdom of Heaven vs. Christian church. Again, this requires some interpretive gymnastics, which I won't go into here much, except to say that the NT regards the 1st Coming of Christ as the inauguration of His Kingdom, howbeit in the hearts of men (Matthew 12:28).

There's my first post. Dispensationalism is very complicated and teaches many unlikely doctrines, strung together from many proof-texts. It also teaches much truth. I would say my own end times view is akin to dispensationalism in some ways, and not in others. In my opinion, the ideas in my 3 points are my problems with it. In my following posts I'll consider the amount of strengths and weaknesses of dispensationalism as well as the next view I look at. I'll do that until I reach a conclusion, at which point we'll be able to see each view's strengths and weaknesses.

Hope you enjoy the journey.

His peace,

Greg

PS Dispensationalists can be Baptist, Methodist, Charismatic, whatever...the system is ubiquitous among Evangelicals. Most of the mainline denominations (Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, etc.) are wary of it.

New Series

2009-09-20T20:54:00.000-07:00

I will be embarking on a series of blogs entitled "The Last Word on the Last Days" (hahaha). This will be a similar format to my previous series "Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth." In case you missed my conclusions on that series, you are welcome to go back and read them yourself, but basically my conclusions were the following:

1. The majority report on evolution is certainly not true as the public schools, universities, and scientists teach it. The fossil record doesn't match. The DNA record doesn't prove that DNA can morph according to environmental influences. There is no secular answer for the start of life (against Stanley Miller and all his followers), because the naturalistic mechanism proposed isn't powerful enough given even billions of years based on pure chance. There is a growing movement in the sciences that recognizes these and other problems with the current majority paradigm of naturalistic evolution. So evolution is headed out scientifically. It's no secret Scripture doesn't agree, and that is more important than all the opinions just presented.

2. The age of the earth remains a problem for the biblical chronology. However, it is highly likely Genesis is a factual/poetic account, given to Moses's primitive people to fit there education level on the universe. Before anyone goes ballistic over what I just said, consider half the days of Genesis are not normal (a la day 1, where light exists with no light-bearing bodies). Also consider that God can and did change human DNA (where do you think Eve came from?). So it seems that there is room for more time than 6 normal solar days in Genesis. However, before I go too far, I will say that if God is as the Bible describes Him, 6 solar days, and all the problems that go along with it from our perspective would be no problem at all to God. Correct? Notice that none of what I have said undermines normal history taking place in Genesis 2 with Adam and Eve. The temptation would have simply taken place after day 7, whether it was a long time, or a shorter one. God knows.

3. Where does this leave us? Genesis is history, but it doesn't include all the details, and that for our benefit. It immediately zooms in on mankind in chapter 2, describing why we are sinners and gives a proto-Gospel answer to that problem. The Bible is theocentric (God-centered), but is also anthropocentric (man-centered). So many other details about God's world are not important to His main plan and message. We will be scratching our heads about a great many things (Genesis included), all the way to Glory.

Speaking of scratching heads...I'll start my new series soon...

Shalom

Greg

Luke 6:43-45: Fly Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee

2009-09-20T20:22:00.000-07:00

Today my preacher addressed the text in the headline, and it appeared to be difficult. Not because he was unprepared. Not because he didn't deliver well. It is just a difficult subject. The greatest hardship in addressing this text is it's connection with the preceding text about "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Luke 6:37). There is a irresistible tension set up when one attempts to harmonize what we heard today with that text that immediately precedes it. The quandary goes like this: "If we are not to judge--then how are we to judge people's fruit?" There are only two options here: 1) Do not judge other's fruit all 2) Or judge them.

The Scripture calls us to make too many judgments (remember that pesky discernment), for the first option to be a live one. So this inevitably leads us to a second sticky question:

How are we to judge people?

My preacher gave the simple answer and explained it well: Judge all things by the Word of God.

This led him to the difficult position of explaining that all things people judge as evil are not evil. However, this is not the end of the story. There is a burden upon Christians to consider their actions, so sin is not the only issue. There is also the issue of other believer's consciences. So anything that makes one stumble, lose faith, or does the same to others, is off limits.

Here is where the difficulty came in. My pastor noted a vineyard owner in town who has been rejected by his church. Then came the shocking statement: "It might not be a sin to own a vineyard and sell wine." Without a doubt, this is true, but I'm sure it raised some eyebrows this morning down here in the Bible Belt! Let me say immediately that I agree with my pastor. He is one of my heroes, and I love him. However, this kind of thing in the ministry in a Bible Belt Baptist Church is where I got my title. O how carefully one must step amongst the landmines of cultural sensitivity!

My pastor went on to explain that this is a Romans 14 issue--an issue of conscience. Not all people are able to handle a person selling alcohol. I can even hear Habakkuk 2:15 being shouted out by people all over the county right now! Yet right there in that passage, the motivation for the one giving out the alcohol is exposed: "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, to thee that addest thy venom, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness! (Hab 2:15 (ASV)). The motivation of this person is to bring drunkeness and shame on his neighbor. This is most likely not the cold-hearted motivation of the local vineyard owner my pastor talked with. The Bible roundly condemns drunkenness, but never condemns plain use of alcohol as a beverage, nor of its selling to others. Similarly, soldiering is an occupation that without a doubt can bring someone into the position of harming someone, but God doesn't condemn it through John the Baptist earlier in Luke, because a soldier's duties don't always involve personal malice as a rule (3:14).

God is all about the motivation of the heart concerning behaviors that can affect others for good or bad. Certain sins are named in the Bible, and that's that for them. There is no other case or argument. However, many things in the Bible require careful discernment, judgment, and grace to determine their moral value. I have become convinced through today's sermon and my previous studies of Romans 14, that we don't know that chapter as we ought here in my state. It's true in missionary work, that anything that is a cause for stumbling or a hindrance to the Gospel, ought to be abstained from. However, that doesn't mean its easy to determine what is legal. Every situation must be analyzed with the highest goal of loving God and man as first priority. That said, we are required to live wisely, in the fear of God, more than anything else.

Keep floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee Brother R!

Greg

911 and Today's Tea Party

2009-09-12T21:09:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a horrific and heroic day in US history 8 years ago. Planes smashed into the World Trade Center destroying them. Other planes hit the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. I have read much conspiracy literature concerning these events. However, two things are most certainly true--in New York, crisis struck and service workers reacted with courage and discipline. Thank God for firefighters, EMTS, paramedics, policemen, and others who served their fellowmen and country on that day. Thanks also to others who served in Pennsylvania and Washington. God bless their families and comfort them with His peace. Furthermore, God bless and keep those who were lost on that day and their families because of these acts of violence and terror.

Much has happened since that fateful day. Americans have largely continued with their lives as normal. However, trouble has been brewing. President Obama and the Democratic led congress have attempted to counter one of the greatest recessions in our nation's history by spending taxpayer money hugely. The US government now has huge debt (much of it backed by China), and has funneled huge amounts of taxpayer money for the forseeable future into the nation's large insurance companies, banks, and automakers. Rather than allow these companies to fail and restructure or disband (which would be just), we the people have been expected to foot the bill as big business repairs itself with our money. Now Obama has said of reforming (socializing) the healthcare industry, "I am not the first president to address this issue, but I am determined to be the last."

Today, in Somerset, there was a Tea Party. It was pro-US, but more than that, themed heavily on our responsibility as citizens to control the democratic process by exercising our right to vote. The keynote speaker refrained, "We must vote out all those who have produced the current situation--democrat and republican." Sitting there, I thought to myself, "how can the people change this situation by voting out politicians?" Surely, the speaker understood that the campaign process is shaped by and favorable to the often self-serving rich, who then bring forward one of two candidates to every post, from which we must choose one. Surely he knows that the problem is not that we can't vote them out, but it is the choices we are given. Big business and the wealthy shape the Republican party. Big business and the wealthy even shape the Democratic party. Campaigning is a costly business and the rich will have their advantages and often their way when it comes to shaping the leadership of this country and the world, and the agenda that leadership imposes. The people are angry...but I doubt they will prevail, as this world is controlled by Satan and his lies about greed and indulgence. As Ecclestiastes says, "Money is the answer to everything." (10:19).

(I am not against rich people in general. However, if the bail-outs are not the rich working with the politicians to preserve and extend their assets as the rest of the country runs low on cash, I don't know what they are. I also believe that despite the inconvenience of the system, good politicians do make it into Congress, however, their numbers are meager. This is were a Gospel revival nationwide could make a difference. If the Holy Spirit doesn't turn the human heart from stone to flesh, there is no answer for greed, poverty, or sharp dealing. Certainly socialist "change" is not the answer, as it provides no accountability or sense of urgency to to instill the values of accountability, work ethic, or fair wages. If the chains of Christ do not lead men--the chains of sin will prevail over them.)

I then thought, "What then is my duty, considering there is faint hope for such nationwide character reformation?" Romans 13 came to mind. I mulled over the fact that Paul told Christians to obey the ungodly and evil Roman government with its Satanic emperors. Why? Paul answers that the authorities have been appointed by God to enforce the law and protect us. This is the best advice. We might not be able to change the political/economic system to a more just one economically and politically, but we can bear witness for Christ, work for our food, deal squarely, and obey all laws not in conflict with God's law under the present system. We may not be able to live comfortably on social security when we retire in the future, and we might not be able to leave worldly goods to our children and grandchildren, but we can instill these values in them and pray that Mammon does not become their god. The positive side of that is thankfulness to God for whatever we receive. Even to the point were all we might have is a day's food at a time and clothes on our backs. (Blessed are the poor/poor in spirit). Thankfulness entails also the recognition that many citizens of this world live in absolute poverty and disease, and that though we Americans seem to have less all the time, we certainly have many more material things than most of the world. We ought to help them in whatever way we can.

I predict the rich will continue to influence the system for personal gain, simply because they have advantages the working and middle class do not. Unconstitutional/progressive/socialist ideas will continue to overtake our Constitution's original intent in legislature and the courts a bit at a time as the world moves toward globalism. Unless America is granted another great revival, which would grant a change of heart to many, many Americans, our country, as after 9/11, will never be the same and will not continue to be governed under the values it was in the past. (Not that the country has been perfect--far from it, but it has and still is great in many ways--just ask all those immigrants why they want to come here.)

However, I say, with the courage of a New York firefighter, rushing into the burning towers, we must fight the good fight, teach our fellowman and children about the Kingdom of righteousness that will never be abolished, about the Treasure laid up that can never rust or be stolen, about the retirement that is really permanent rest, and about the Leader--the Good Shepherd, who never goes astray, who never will leave us or forsake us, who will take care of us eternally. Jesus Christ is His name. This is the Kingdom of Heaven, which we must latch onto forcefully--the USA is a kingdom of this world and can ultimately not provide any of the these things. Never will we fail if we do this, though the world fall apart around us. Let's roll...

Country Boy

2009-09-12T20:53:00.000-07:00

So many things have happened since July. I figure I'll start with something I love--music. Lately I have been studying country music and bluegrass because I play guitar at church and I wish to incorporate some aspects of these styles into my playing. What sparked this desire was finding an Albert Lee video on YouTube.

I came across this video because in the days when I played mostly rock and metal, all of my guitar mags raved about Albert Lee when they came to talk about country music. I didn't give it much thought, but I was simply astounded when I found out how good Albert Lee was! I already knew that Chet Atkins was a guitarist's guitarist, and that his influence, Merle Travis had also had a drastic influence on many American styles of music from rock to folk, but I had no idea of the technical expertise owned by Albert Lee and other country soloists. So, new musical respect has arrived in my mind concerning country guitarists--they are as good, or better than their rock and roll counterparts.

Mountaintop

2009-07-04T21:16:00.000-07:00

The climber is poised on the precipice high,
His hair and his lips are touching the sky,
A climb very long has taken its toll,
And the top has been reached, as has his goal.
The winds whip high in the thin cold air,
No creatures or people make a stir there,
And taking it in, a lonely figure frowns,
For now he is considering, how to get down.

Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth: Radiometric Dating and Scripture (part 6)

2009-03-06T15:14:00.000-08:00

So far, I've noted some scientific perspectives on radiometric dating. Most scientists and many people believe the procedure has validity. Others question the scientists who use the method according to their bias, as they harmonize evidence that agrees with their assumptions of an old earth, while dismissing a lot of examples of dates that do not agree as mistakes caused by some natural process, etc.

This post is about the views of Scripture (Genesis 1) and how they harmonize with radiometric dating.

1. 7 Day Creationism: This is the oldest view of Christianity and is still held today. This position holds radiometric dating as completely false as a scientific discipline that can tell the age of the earth. Just last week I listened to John MacArthur (pastor of Grace Community) say the earth is about 6000 years old. He didn't immediately offer an explanation of his view on radiometric dating, but he was implicitly saying it offers (in its secular persuasion) no evidence for earth's age. MacArthur was relying only on Scripture. In other places, I have seen he and other 7 Day folks bring forward other objections to the method. In one such instance, MacArthur claimed that the speed of light was slowing down over time centuries. Thus, in old times, the decay of radioactive elements (the "clock" of the method), was faster, giving high ages that are false according to the true age of the earth. Additionally, those who hold this view also give credit for the fossil record to Noah's Flood. Proponents of this view staunchly declare there was no death in the world before sin (Romans 5). With this position, there is no compromise or agreement with mainstream science.

2. Theistic Evolution: This view represents a huge compromise with science on the part of Bible scholars. It assumes evolution and all old earth arguments are valid, and empties Genesis of explicit meaning. It attributes the Creation to God, and the workings of it (through NATURAL processes), but there is no Creation, save maybe the beginning of life. This view picked up steam from the middle of the 19th century on, and eventually resulted in liberal Christianity, which also allowed other sources of authority to dictate the words of the Bible (such as the social Gospel replacing the Biblical Gospel and psychology's terms and methods replacing the "soul care" that earlier generations of Bible believer's taught in regard to sin and righteousness of the believer). The weakness of this view is that makes no distinction between the strength of the scientific evidence for evolution (weak) and that for the old age of the earth (strong). The mainline denominations (Presbyterianism in the PCUSA; Anglicanism in the Episcopal Church USA; The United Methodist Church) have all either boldly or quietly accepted science's claims without reservation (though the Methodists didn't commit their position in paper until last year). Noteworthy in all this is that many proponents of the secular scientific worldview in these denominations did not start with radiometric dating as their problem, rather, it was the evolutionary worldview that started to be popular in 19th century that pushed them. Radiometric dating only strengthened their initial position. The Catholic Church has officially agreed with this position for many years.

3. Day-Age Theory: This theory is essentially the same as the above (#2) in accepting an old earth, except that the theologians who advocate it try to find harmony in the order of creation found in Genesis and that propounded by natural science. The trouble is the orders do not match up (birds before fish in Scripture versus fish before birds in science, for example). This view also does not recognize the difficulties that evolution faces. It is little different than theistic evolution.

4. The Gap Theory: Hailing from the days of the Bible teacher CI Scofield, this view inserts a "gap" between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3 that is supposed to account for all the animals and plants laid out in the earth's foundation that seem not to be part of the main part of the Genesis 1 record (1:3-end of the chapter). These creatures are supposed to be part of a world that fell after the initial creation of God, but before the rest of Genesis 1. This previous creation and fall is attributed by many proponents of this view to God creating a world for Satan (originally a beautiful, great angel) to rule. When Satan fell into sin, the world God gave him was destroyed and he was punished with eternal condemnation (to be executed finally in the Last Judgment). This view is interesting, mainly because it is creative, and possible. It is far from certain however, as it lays on shaky foundations. First, its interpretation of Genesis 1:1-3 is far from conclusive. Second, its "fall of Satan" story has little Scriptural backup. Third, it offers no interpretation of the the fossil record, which seems to show a progression of lifeforms that appear and go extinct throughout the record, from one layer of rock to another (save a few forms, which remain to this day). However, this position is compatible with an old earth as found by radiometric dating and accepts a literal Flood story, but does not lay the fossil burden on the Flood. These factors make it somewhat appealing.

5. Progressive Creationism: This view embraces the Day-Age categorization of God progressively creating life over long ages (per radiometric dating), but does not agree with evolution, because of the theory's weaknesses. However, regarding the Creation of man, many progressive creationists insist on literal historical nature of the account. This position is the best compromise (if one wants a compromise) between Scripture and available scientific data. However, many of the theories proponents do not hold to literal interpretations of certain Scriptures, specifically, the ancient history found in Genesis 1-11. This leads them in the direction of the popular "framework hypothesis" view of Scripture, which is not an origins theory proper, but is instead an explanation of Genesis as a literary description of God's real creative process, given by God to Moses for simplicity. The framework's main features are a focus on God creating all that was and is, and an attention to God's creating of the realms of existence (the land, sky, and sea) and then God filling them (the Sun for the heavens and fish for the waters for instance). This theory is still not well-known as the Day-Age Theory, but it is very interesting nonetheless, and is compatible with aspects of both the Intelligent Design movement and the Young Earth Creationist movement.

(I included the cartoons because so much information in the debate I've been writing about contains mostly rhetoric and a little bit of truth. Many Christians don't want to critically examine good arguments for an old earth and many Christians and others, including scientists don't want to critically examine the evidence for creation and the evidence against evolution.)

Is Obama socialist? Hmmm....

2009-03-06T11:16:00.000-08:00

Karl Marx was a complex figure. Communism and Socialism are associated with him. The idea at the heart of his and Engel's Manifesto is simple though. Basically, Marx decried the advantage of property ownership and the inequality it produces in the world economy. Those who own property, and especially lots of property (the "means of production) are set to control all those who work under them. Therefore, he believed that all property (real estate, factories, businesses, etc.) should be public property. Property ownership results in a ruling class over a Capitalist society (with capital meaning property, basically). Marx and Engels say in the Manifesto of Capitalism:

"It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands."

See for all citations from here on: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.pdf)

The idea here is a ruling class that has by chance of history inherited the power to rule industry and all of life. The "economy" is regarded as belonging to them. Marx and Engels would say the Dow Jones Average or the Fortune 500 belong to this class. Those at the top of these structures control everything in life: the condition of the workplace, the government, the church, and the family. The individual capitalist (or bourgeois) as he calls them, may fall and be replaced by another, but the class remains distinct as a ruling entity over all other members of society (the proletariet).

Marx and Engels go on to say that these capitalist folks will be overthrown by a new spirit: "A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism." This spirit will motivate, over time, all members of the proletariet to produce a classless society in the future, called communism, in which property rights are destroyed, everything is owned by everybody, and there is no bourgeois. Marx mentions societies will "prepare" themselves for this, unwittingly, as industry grows.

The Communist governments of Russia and China, Cuba and Korea wanted the change to communism immediately. These revolutionary government's leaders relied on the following logic from the Manifesto:

"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means
of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."

(I know this passage is controversial, as those who used it for revolutionary purposes did not abolish their own power.)

What resulted was a world-wide blood bath, as these small groups of leaders gained a following and created violent revolution throughout the world, changing the face of the nations in a century. These leaders remained in control, and no classless society ever emerged in these nations (see George Orwell's "Animal Farm").

So now, we have two things: The Manifesto's view of capitalism and its view of communism. What about socialism? How does the Manifesto regard it? And is President Obama a socialist? Here is a quote from the Manifesto regarding a socialist position that sounds like our president:

"A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government."

Plain English: One form of socialism is a mechanism of the ruling class to suppress true Communist revolution by giving the working class "stuff."

Does that sound like Obama? It does doesn't it? I think Obama is socialist in his views of the economy according to the Manifesto.

What does the Manifesto say the purpose of such socialism is? To stave off revolutionary tendencies of the working class through gifts.

I am no Communist. I am not a socialist either. Nor do embrace the capitalist system when the working person is squeezed as much as they can be by those who control property, but based on Marx--I don't think Obama is just trying to help "the least of these," but craftily is also helping the greatest. For those of you who hate George Bush, know that the motivations of these two men are not that disparate, or separated. They both help the lesser of society in some way to serve the greater, if not only for their own benefit, then for the benefit of themselves and others of their class.

The greatest difference between them is: Who is going to take care of you better? Business or big government? Where should the power lie heaviest? After all, Bush was an oil man and Obama is a constitutional law professor (a lawyer--read government) from Harvard.

Who will really take care of you better though? God. Yes, there is one power, one government, one Kingdom, and one King that all will bow to. So if your a Christian, remember that your Savior is not legislating in Washington. Nor is he test-drilling for oil in the sands of Arabia. He is in Heaven, and He will take care of us--our Lord Jesus Christ is our hope, not the petty powers of this world.

More on Obama's eligibility and birth certificate

2009-03-03T19:59:00.000-08:00

Seems this Obama eligibility issue is still stewing. See the following link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90574

Let me say something though.

At this point, I almost wish it wasn't an issue. Yes I did say that.

Here is why...my first inclination is that it would be a huge mess for our country. Who knows the outcome? Obama's quick string of decisions and actions would be called into question. Can you imagine the stimulus package being voided because he signed it? I'm not saying this is possible or probable...maybe the government would find a easy solution to the mess that would cause, but maybe not. Then think of this: Joe Biden President. (At least I think that's the course of action the government would take, but I don't know constitutional law). Not only that, imagine the fall-out among young people, blacks, and other groups. At very least, the huge disappointment would be felt far and wide. Perhaps something worse would happen.

Yet, there are other things to think about.

Do we have a Constitution or not? Does it mean something or not? Does public opinion or law rule the land? Or, as many of us are feeling, do many of the politicians in Washington do what is best in their own eyes?

I was disappointed yet again today as Obama made known his desire to repeal some of the Bush administration's legislative actions to protect medical professionals who cannot recommend abortion with a clear conscience. His nomination of pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services further shows his campaign positions were sincere regarding his support of abortion on demand rights. I vehemently disagree with the President on these issues.

Yet, they are not the reason I think his eligibility issue is important. It is because he must comply with federal law just like any other candidate. And it's just a birth certificate. Why in the world is Hawaii's government holding it back from public view? This whole issue is so strange, and could be solved so simply. Perhaps we shall see if there is more to it than talk.

John Piper On the Recession: A Timely Word

2009-02-25T19:02:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite writers and pastors is John Piper. He is insanely in love with the LORD (so far as I can tell). Here are his observations on the current recession. To listen or read the whole thing, go to the link on the right side of my blog under "Desiring God."

(Some of) God’s Purposes in This Recession

Now what are some of God’s purposes in this recession? I will mention five:

1. He intends for this recession to expose hidden sin and so bring us to repentance and cleansing.
2. He intends to wake us up to the constant and desperate condition of the developing world where there is always and only recession of the worst kind.
3. He intends to relocate the roots of our joy in his grace rather than in our goods, in his mercy rather than our money, in his worth rather than our wealth.
4. He intends to advance his saving mission in the world—the spread of the gospel and the growth of his church—precisely at a time when human resources are least able to support it. This is how he guards his glory.
5. He intends for the church to care for its hurting members and to grow in the gift of love.

As I listened to this message, I was convicted deeply of our selfishness in America. Two bright spots:

1. He said: "Recession is to make us think of the poor of the world, who for, there is only crushing, everlasting recession." (my paraphrase).

2. He noted the Afar people of Africa:

Our family prays through the Global Prayer Digest each morning. For January 29, 2009, we prayed for the Afar people of Ethiopia:

It’s 3:00 a.m., and the Afar father is still awake. The desert night is cold. He snuggles up to his wife and newborn baby to keep them warm. Their stomachs rumble with hunger. Should he slaughter his scrawny goat to feed his wife, hoping she will produce enough milk for their baby? Or should he beseech the clan elders to move again, in search of weeds for the goat, or maybe even some fresh water?

They are fortunate; both his wife and their baby survived the birth. The Afar people have the highest maternal fatality rate in the world. Women give birth without benefit of sterile conditions, or even clean water. Of the babies born alive one-third die before age five. Afar people roam throughout one of the most desolate places on earth: the Ethiopian desert.

Drought and malnutrition make them vulnerable to diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, conjunctivitis, and other water-borne illnesses. Of 13 million Afar people, three million are infected with HIV/AIDS.

All this is well worth pondering for a moment apart from the constant hum of the flat screen, large television (in many of our houses) that numbs our minds nightly.

A Powerful Pro-Life Video!

2009-02-25T18:59:00.000-08:00

What's Love Got to Do With It?

2009-02-12T15:00:00.000-08:00

On my birthday, June 4th in 1984, Tina Turner's label released the following song by her. The lyrics go:

You must understand
That the touch of your hand
Makes my pulse react
That it`s only the thrill
Of boy meeting girl
Opposites attract

It`s physical
Only logical
You must try to ignore
That it means more than that

Oh whats love got to do, got to do with it
What`s love but a second hand emotion
What`s love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart
When a heart can be broken

It may seem to you
That i`m acting confused
When you`re close to me
If i tend to look dazed
I`ve read it someplace
I`ve got cause to be

There`s a name for it
There`s a phrase that fits
But whatever the reason
You do it for me

Oh whats love got to do, got to do with it
What`s love but a second hand emotion
What`s love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart
When a heart can be broken

I`ve been thinking of a new direction
But i have to say
I`ve been thinking about my own protection
It scares me to feel this way

What`s love got to do, got to do with it
What`s love but a sweet old fashioned notion
What`s love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken

Today, on February 12th, 2009, Valentine's Day is only 2 days away (so men, take note). "Love" is in the air. This begs a question: What is "love"?

To Tina Turner's speaker in the above song, love cannot be physical attraction or the butterfly gut feelings and excitement that accompany that attraction. Perhaps in the most telling lyrics of the song above, she says: "What's love got to do, got to do with it? What's love but a sweet old fashioned notion?" It seems that the speaker in her song has decided to detach physical attraction from love, and also has come to believe true love between men and women is mostly a dangerous delusion. These words belong to someone who has gotten "burned," and can't risk connecting physical attraction and love anymore. Poignant words, seeing that Tina's life with Ike Turner melded fierce attraction, cooperation, and also pain and abuse. Sounds like she knew her Shakespeare:

They do not love that do not show their love.
The course of true love never did run smooth.
Love is a familiar. Love is a devil. There is no evil angel but Love.
-- William Shakespeare

Many young people in our culture are following this logic of love to a "t." College campuses are rife with the "hook-up" culture, where physical relationship is detached from the risk of love and commitment. These grown kids wait for a later date, say 30 years old to take a stab at marriage. The US Census Bureau says divorce is also still alive and well, though with the increase in cohabitation and the decrease in marriage rates, it has waned somewhat.

I was somewhat surprised to see Valentine's "pajama gram" advertisement while watching FOX News. The catch-line? "The only present guaranteed to get a woman to take off her clothes." We are seeing a culture in which the real hope of attaching love to commitment and long-term care is either being degraded or deferred in favor of physical satisfaction and pleasure. After all--"Who needs a heart, when a heart can be broken?"

So "What's Love Got To Do With It?" Is there a definition for "love," in our modern, post-Christian context? Not from many voices in our culture. But the Bible speaks to the reality of love--and it's an act of will. It is not just magnetic feelings, but it is a marvelous commitment--a covenant. And covenants need sterner stuff at their base than momentary human emotion. God chose Christians as sons and and daughters in love from before the foundation of the world (see Eph. 1). This was at base an act of will, looking forward to a bright future with His children in which all things are giving Him glory.

As human beings, we can't choose our mate knowing that what they lack, we will sovereignly complete in the future. God does that with His church, but we can't. This is why it is so critical for Christians to find a Christian spouse--God can meld two of His own together better than any wisdom of the world! But, love here is again an act of will, strongly because the Christian's mind is not on vacation while the body, the flesh, makes choices based on physical cues. Again, I believe Shakespeare summarized this as well:

...Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or Bends with the remover to remove.
O, no! It is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken.
It is the star to every wandering bark,
whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
-- William Shakespeare

Being that human beings cannot know hearts as God does, there is always peril in relationships of all kinds. Sin can rear its ugly head and ruin the best of relationships horribly. However, when the mind (through obeying the Holy Spirit) is in control, the chances of heart-break are less. For example, suppose two Christians want to get married. They spend time getting to know each other and trying to care for one another. They discuss goals and dreams. They discuss, most importantly, faith. Through this process, they find out if they are compatible. If they are not, they can part ways. If they are, they might marry. This process is true in a certain way for unbelievers as well. They match up better with someone whose vision of life and dreams match their own. But, as with any kind of people, there is always the peril of the human heart's sin. So, there is always a risk in love relationships. That doesn't mean true love in life and marriage is not possible or even common. In fact, I would argue that strong love relationships between husbands and wives help keep this world civil and sane!

Is "love" just an "old fashioned notion?" I do think so. But it's God's notion--His thought. Mankind has just twisted it, resulting in pain and questioning. Love is eternal in the Holy Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost willingly and happily loved each other before they ever began creating the world. Love is an act of will, it is beautiful, and it has eternal consequences. It starts in Heaven, and when the Kingdom is sought above all things, the best of romantic love flows to earth.

Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth (Part 5) Scientific Evidence Against Radiometric Dating

2008-12-25T06:33:00.000-08:00

This post is more difficult to write than my last two about radiometric dating. If you read those posts, you remember I said that secular geologists are uniform in their support of radiometric dating. This is true, but though I've said the evidence is very convincing, there are a lot of samples and evidence that we normally don't hear about, that are not factored into the equation of the old-earth samples, that do not agree with them. These are usually not taken seriously by scientists, who dismiss them as anomalous.

1. C-14 dating sometimes yields inaccurate dates. Christian Answers at, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html, says the following:
"plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are...Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating."

The article goes on to say that C-14 dating is cross-referenced with history to obtain correct dates on most carbon dated items. Thus, there is uncertainty in C-14 dating, though it is a helpful dating tool.

2. Dating of radioactive rocks (K-Ar and the like) seem to have less inconsistency than C-14, but still sometimes yield dates that appear to be off the mark. Christian Answers notes one such example:

"Researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today."

The conclusion in clear, the fossils bore the brunt of the weight in this dating of an ancient hominid. So, it is true that most dates off the mark are corrected for by scientists who look for evidence that is more in accord with their worldview. How much this happens is up for debate. Geologist John Woodmorappe, an ardent Creationist makes a career of documenting "adjusted evidence" like that in the paragraph above.

While almost all secular geologists form a consensus about the age of earth's rocks and fossils, it is clear that not everyone agrees. Ben Stein has made a good case in his movie "Expelled" that academia does not always form conclusions based on facts but on a prior scheme that forms the facts around a specific conclusion to be reached. That said, it still seems the arguments for radiometric dating have strong validity, though future discoveries and continued research could change things.

Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth (Part 4) Radiometric Dating's Scientific Support For

2008-12-22T17:07:00.000-08:00

Let me by honest: radiometric dating is not out of my or your league to understand, but it is out of my league to explain it technically. Let's start by going back to our clock illustration:

1. A digital clock is observed to run dead at 12:30pm, today.
2. An expert does the math on the probable life of the battery.
3. The math indicates the clock has been running for a year.

This is the scientific essence of radiometric dating. The only difference is that the radioactive substances in the rocks of earth are the "batteries" of the clock. These substances tell how long a rock has been changing from one radioactive substance to another radioactive substance. The expert is the scientist who calculates the rock's life based on rate of change over time.

There are several forms of this dating.

1. Carbon 14-Carbon 14 is in the atmosphere. Living organsims ingest it. When they die, they stop ingestion (duh). Then C-14 starts to decay to lesser elements. The amount of C-14 left indicates at least the death point of the organism. This dating method is used widely to date young substances. Older substances are supposed to be devoid of C-14, because of its relatively short half-life. It works back a few thousand years.

2. Potassium-Argon dating is based on Potassium 40 decaying into Argon 40. It is based on exactly the same procedure as Carbon 14 dating, for the most part. It yields very old dates for some of earth's rocks (over 3 billion years).

3. Rubidium-Strontium dating is the same thing above with different elements. It too yields very old dates.

4. Isochron dating is different than the above methods. It is a "mixed bag" sample. A rock is sampled from its various component matter (crystals, and other diverse molecules). An average age is obtained from the samples using mathematics to factor in events that changed the various components of the rock over time to its various pieces. This average is a "checking mechanism" to give a better picture of the age of the whole rock.

As I said, these dating methods, on the whole, seem to be accurate, and the ones that yield old dates seem to point conclusively to an earth more than 4 billion years old. Geologists of the secular persuasion are uniform in their embrace of these methods. It is scientific dogma, and all the more, because in these cases we have actual tests (instead of unsightly conjectures--a hallmark of evolutionary biology schemes of life). I would also add that Creationists point out that some dates conflict, and seem to be in error. Other scientists are unconvinced, however, given the massive number of agreeing evidence samples.

This is all very convincing evidence to me too, even as a Christian who is historical in his interpretation of Scripture. However, I am inconclusive without further research.

Interesting Items in the News

2008-12-22T16:43:00.001-08:00

I don't want to make an extensive posting today (I'm tired), but I'll offer some snippets from the news.

1. Pastor Rick Warren is traveling in some strange circles today. He has become bosom buddies with Barak Obama and some of Obama's constituency over the last few years. First, he invited Obama to a civil forum at his church, giving his Christian pulpit to the then radical pro-choice senator in the name of AIDS education and prevention. He supported his decision to do this as a matter of his common support of the AIDS prevention issue with Obama. Since then, Obama and John McCain traveled to Saddleback for a presidential questioning session. Finally, now president-elect Obama invited Warren to give the prayer at his swearing in. Now it seems Warren is mingling with gay activists who support Obama, including singer Melissa Ethridge. This is all very strange to me. I recently read an article the talked about this meeting and one in which Warren met with Muslim leaders, too. Here's a teaser quote:

"Rick Warren has told a Muslim group in California that 'You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand.' And at the same gathering, Warren also admitted he's a big fan of lesbian activist Melissa Ethridge and has all her albums.

Under fire for opposing gay marriage, the influential evangelical told the Muslim Public Affairs Council's annual convention Saturday that he loves Muslims, people of other religions, Republicans and Democrats, and he also loves "gays and straights."

The 54-year-old pastor and founder of Saddleback Church in Southern California told the crowd of 500 that it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree on everything all the time.

"You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand," said Warren.

Sounds different from what the Lord said through Amos doesn't it? "How can two walk together lest they be agreed?"

Anyways, here is the link to the article:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=362164

2. Barak Obama's birth certificate has still, to my knowledge, remained unrevealed. Why does no one care about this? Is it because Obama has been an active member of the United States citizenry for most of his life? Perhaps...the press is still saying very little about this issue. I think it is critical however, because it says something extremely important about how we regard our Constitution. May we change the law at our desire or convenience? Time will tell, and I think this issue may play a big part in that.

3. Toyota is showing losses for the first time ever this year. Wow. The Japanese are known for their work-ethic and frugality, and now they are in trouble in this economic slowdown as well. They are predicting a full year before recovery. To me, this says, "Hold on to your butts, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!" (Yep, that quote is from a Harry Potter movie.

Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth: Radiometric Dating (Part 3)

2008-12-08T18:53:00.001-08:00

Radiometric dating has been around for a while now. Everyone has heard of Carbon 14 dating, a form of radiometric dating.

This method of dating earth's age amounts to a clock using atoms. Certain atoms change to other atoms over time. The amount of time to change them is called their half-life. A radioactive rock is obtained, its purity is assessed, and then it is tested to see how many atoms have changed into other atoms. The math is done for the amount of time for this process and an age of the rock is determined.

Many of these tests have been done in which earth rocks are dated to be over 3 billion years old. These tests serve as the main beachhead upon which old-earth geology is built. I can't write a long paper here, and don't want to be over-technical, so I will say straightforwardly that radiometric dating is very convincing evidence for an old earth.

However, it must be said that this method carries some big assumptions.

1. All radioactive rocks started off completely one atom type and changed to another.
2. The process has been undisturbed for eons.
3. The laws of physics have never altered.

These assumptions cannot be proven or dis-proven by science. I frankly don't know if they are true. However, I believe in a supernatural Creator who could play havoc with these assumptions. So God can do anything, and radiometric dating might give false results based on wrong assumptions that exclude God.

The alternative, which many Christian people take, is that the scientific results are correct, and Genesis is saying something different than the literal 24-hour six day theory many Creationist Christians assert. Various theories have been invented to change Genesis's interpretation to fit with old-earth scientific data, which has resulted in the "gap theory," the "day age theory," and other old-earth theories. Some of these theories are older than radiometric dating, but all give a Bible time-line that works well with an old earth.

I am still studying this issue (radiometric dating) and my conclusions are not complete. I will try to provide, in my next post, a basic pro-con argument set-up for the validity/falsity of radiometric dating according to scientific perspectives.
In a later post, I will try to address the various Scriptural theories devised based on the acceptance or rejection of radiometric results.

God's peace to you,

Greg

Political Afterthoughts: Obama's birth certificate

2008-12-04T14:04:00.000-08:00

Many other writers and thinkers are more qualified than I to write on the election we have just experienced. I'll just say that I voted for McCain based on his support of issues that I support (the right of the unborn to life very important among them).

However, if one wants to read a good post on America's decision on Barak Obama as president-elect, I suggest reading Al Mohler's page at:

http://www.almohler.com/blog.php?selectMonth=11&selectYear=2008

Just cut and paste this link into your browser to read his "America Has Chosen a President." It deals with the cold realities people of Christian faith may face under the new administration.

More interesting (and distressing) at this point to me is the fact that Barak Obama's birth certificate has yet to be revealed. So far as I know, this issue is going unnoticed by a lot of people. The certificate of live birth revealed for Obama is widely not considered to constitute a declaration of US citizenship. The president-elect will formally be appointed (so far as I know) by the electoral college in 10 days, and it is not a sure fact that he is even a US citizen!

Joseph Farrah has written a short post about this matter, including a link to his petition for the Obama birth certificate to be revealed. Farrah's article can be read at:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82648

I encourage you, reader, to sign Farrah's petition demanding that this matter be cleared up. Farrah urges his readers to take this issue seriously: "If the issues surrounding Obama's status as a natural born citizen are simply swept under the rug, then the Constitution simply no longer means what it says. It no longer limits officials from doing anything they feel like doing."

We are living in crazy times in our country. We may be living on the verge of a hard-left swing in American law, compounded by the ominous possibility that our government may now be shown to operate without regard for our charter document, the Constitution. Of course, we've all heard complaints about activist judges who "legislate from the bench," and manipulate the law in doing so, but this pattern is bad news. If our country may be steered off its foundations by the whims of men, without regard for the rule of law, what is next? What will we be asked (forced) to accept by our leaders? Ominous indeed.

Apology: The Lack of New Posts

2008-12-04T14:01:00.000-08:00

Hello guys,

Thank you all for reading my blog. I haven't been able to post lately because of I've been busy. I'll try to post more often, now that I have been freed up a bit.

Greg

In Memoriam

2008-10-31T20:25:00.000-07:00

Dad

The smell of your clothes, sweat and soil,
The feel of your hands, rough with toil,
The hair of your head, brushy and thin,
Few wrinkles line your sun-tanned skin.

Your teeth, not perfect, form a lovely smile,
And eyes of blue, that hold no whiles,
Average of height, with frame quite strong,
A belly that matches with eating too long.

Feet pale and freckled, in boots all day,
Moustache like a brush, spritzed with grey,
A face by turns: serious…humorous…joyous,
Arms full of strength, your joints weariness.

A hairy chest, with manly structure,
A broad back always strong, ever sure.
Your voice is deep but smooth with care,
Calves springy-stout, muscled thighs upstairs.

No one can see the love in your breast,
But everyone sees it, nonetheless,
Strength and compassion hidden from sight,
Invisible things, apparent as Light.

This is you Dad, on this day you died,
When manly vigor had not left your side,
The only part that failed you today,
Was your heart that broke and you flew away.

But you left me your smile, your eyes mine too,
My hands are not yet rough, but will be soon,
My garments as yours, smell of sweat and dirt,
And someday like yours did, my joints will hurt.

My voice not as deep as your manly tone,
But with it like you, I’m singing of Home,
Whiskers on my lip, not as greyed…coarse,
My hair’s still here, but we might get divorced.

My feet flat like yours, pale in boots too,
To carry me here, my long trip through.
To walk in the path you walked before,
To follow our Lord to distant shores.

You gave me your arms, and hairy chest,
Your muscles hard, to work with zest,
To use your strength for my family’s health,
To give them my all, for Heaven’s wealth…

This is Me, on this day you died,
When manly vigor has not left my side,
The only part that fails me today—
My heart has broke, you’ve flown away.

But with broken heart, I know as I live,
The gifts God gave you, He gave me to give,
To give them again to my son you loved,
That he too might pledge them to God above.

To travel his life, as you journeyed here,
As I followed you, he’ll follow me near,
I’ll show him the man we want him to be—
As he follows our way toward Eternity.

Of deepest prayers, that I pray below,
That he would come to Our Father and know,
How our Abba-Father, has led us with care,
And at our ways End, he’ll meet you There.

Elections: A War With Rhetoric as the Battlefield Smoke

2008-10-06T13:30:00.000-07:00

Sadly, most people voting for the president(s) this year will have few issues presented in an easily understandable way to them by the media. I may be raising this issue as a personal problem, but I have a sneaking suspicion this is not the case, and that the cloudy speech of the media makes it hard for people to vote intelligently. For instance, how many average voters understand the Wall Street Bailout? Whom it benefits and whom it doesn't? What its impact will be for the future? And there are a whole host of other issues like it, from Green issues, to oil markets, health care, taxes, and foreign policy, just to name a few. Perhaps if the general public really knew the simplest explanations and implications of these issues, we would be finding things out that would cause us to demand more "change" in the US government than Barak Obama will ever bring!

Aside from the abortion issue, on which the candidates are clear, there are a whole pack of issues people want to understand and hear about from the media. People want to hear where the candidates stand, and they want (I think) to be able to grasp most of the major positions of the candidates. Maybe this is not possible, but I do know one thing--if it is possible, then the media makes it harder. Take for instance the vice-presidential debate. Depending on what media outlet one listens to, Biden or Palin could've "won." At least part of this is because the media engages in shaded questioning to benefit the political party and candidate they support. The following article is worth a read. It is not on Biden or Palin, but is instead on the moderator of the recent veep debate, Gwen Ifill. By reading this article, one discovers that her questions were often not designed to educate voters on the candidate's views, rather, her questions where rhetorical tools carefully designed to make Sarah Palin's answer's look bad.

Read it here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/gwen_ifills_vp_debate_bias.html

Another interesting fact:

In college, my sociology prof plugged NPR News as reliable because a poll was taken to measure listener misconceptions about US motives for invading Iraq. He noted that NPR listeners had "fewer" misconceptions than those who listened to other news networks. Thus, he was saying NPR is more factual. The interesting fact is this: Gwen Ifill, the vice-presidential debate moderator works for NPR News.

Gods Wisdom to You,

Greg

"The Least of These"

2008-09-22T18:52:00.000-07:00

Having no cable or satellite TV, I don't get to watch broadcasts of events like Rick Warren's "Saddleback Forum," his interview of the prospective presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. He asked them the same questions and let them talk on a nationally televised interview. However, I did watch quite a bit of this event, courtesy of YouTube.

One thing that stuck out to me was Warren's question to Obama of how Obama's Christian worldview affected his life. Obama said that Christ inspired him to help the helpless, whom he used Jesus' words to describe as, "the least of these." I didn't think about the heinous nature of that statement for a day or two, but it is terrible. Think about this with me for a moment, because it is not at first obvious why Obama erred so in this statement.

"The least of these," is a statement used by Christ to refer to Christians...it is not referring to just anyone. However, in Obama's use of the term, it refers to economically downtrodden people or those in American society who traditionally have not had much. So Obama's use of Christ's principle is a misuse of Christ's words first of all--that is wrong in itself, but let's probe further: Did Christ promote helping the helpless? Yes, He did. He taught us to love our enemies (Matt. 5) and He taught us to give to the poor (Matt. 6), and he taught us not to tempt others to sin (Matt. 18), among many other things...in fact, we could say that Christ's principle given for Christians in their personal conduct with other Christians and unbelievers is an extension of "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22).

Now, lets compare this to one of Obama's views...his position on abortion. Who is more needy and helpless than an unborn infant? Who needs our support to make it more--a poor person or an unborn child facing the scissors and a vacuum tube? Who is more able to defend their life? Who is "the least of these" in this circumstance? An unborn child has 23 chromosomes. Under normal circumstances, much of the time, these 23 chromosomed-creatures (called human beings) make it out into the world where they will be unequivocally proclaimed to be people. Eventually, they would defend themselves if they could. For Obama to proclaim that he is unable to see if they are persons or not is hogwash. It is apparent that these are indeed "the least of these." Indeed, as I blogged on earlier, Obama attacked legislation that would have provided protection for unwanted pre-term down-syndrome babies that had been born. On this, even the liberals admitted that this is a child, born into the world--deserving protection, and they voted for it in Congress. But Obama didn't. He wouldn't even grant these children--undoubtedly "the least of these," the compassionate political stance that would have helped preserve or at least comfort their suffering little lives.

And so, for Obama, it may be "above his pay-grade" to determine when human life begins...but it is also above his pay-grade to determine what Jesus meant when He said "the least of these."

"Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:14)

An Amazing Christian

2008-09-02T18:48:00.000-07:00

This young man (30 years) is Mosab Hassan Yousef. He is the son of a Hamas leader and he has converted to Christianity. His interview can be found at the following link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402483,00.html#

...and it is absolutely amazing...I can't even do it justice with a summary, except that this young man has followed the Lord Jesus' words in the following scripture: "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Matt. 16:24) This young man, in his short life, has studied the truth of Christianity--truth available world-wide now because of the internet and other media, and has renounced Islam and Hamas to follow Christ. He speaks intelligently of the ignorance of Muslims about their own religion, about searching for the truth about Christ, and about the state of the world today--including the State of Israel and the constant conflicts of the Middle East. I don't say this with every link, but please copy the above link or type it into your browser and read this interview--it is God-glorifying!

In this interview Mosab tells of the fact that Muslims and others are simply ignorant about Christianity because they have never been told the truth. I couldn't agree more. In my last 3 years of attending college, I had to defend my orthodox Christian beliefs numerous times against my professors, who would time and again try to lump conservative and fundamental Christianity together with fundamentalist Islam. My professors were very ignorant of my point-of-view, just as Mosab's teachers, friends, and family were ignorant of his. Fundamentalist Islam provides a false interpretation of a religion (Christianity) it does not really understand. Mosab sets the record straight.

Thanks to Jesus for saving this young man and bringing his testimony to the world!

Sudden Evolution and Petrified Trees (Stange Facts and Earth's Age Part 2)

2008-08-25T16:42:00.000-07:00

Since I was in grade school, I have been instructed in a picture of life on this planet that started with simple life and moved on to the amazing diversity of life today. I remember watching a school film some years ago that followed this pattern. We were told, "Life started with only a few molecules, shocked into life in a fertile soup of millions of years ago (don't mind the rhetoric), which painstakingly preserved untold positive additions to the DNA blueprint over aeons that ultimately resulted in everything from jellyfish to man. Wow! What a story. Not only that, but some of each step in the "tree of life" have been buried and preserved in rocks corresponding to their age.

Not only this, but many people have seen something like the following geological scheme:

Tables like these list ages of the earth, based on organisms found in each layer of the earth, and draw conclusions about the age of rock layers based on them, as well as using radiometric dating to determine rock ages (the last being the subject of a future post). These have been powerful arguments to my mind, in favor of an old earth.

However, I later found out these tables are far from the whole picture. Often, older life is found on top of younger life (though scientists reject these as exceptions as the result of upheaval of old rocks).

So illustrated (with higher numbers equal to younger life the traditional picture of rock layers and life looks like this:

10
9
8
etc.

....while the newer pictures look like this

10
9
8
etc.

or

10
6
8

or

7
10
6

Not only the disorder, but sometimes, layers are missing completely, and in hardly any place does anything resembling what should be a sequence from 10 down to 1 occur neatly.These days, the old story of orderly deposition of old life to new is not what science is finding.

Also, and against the steady re-telling of the old story, there has emerged a large scientific consensus that life has been an explosive affair--not only involving those first Frankenstein bacteria. The following link leads to an article detailing at least one of these explosions:

http://www.thedesignoflife.net/blog/The-Avalon-explosion-The-dawn-of-life-reveals-another-intricate-puzzle/View/Default.aspx

So Darwin, though worshiped by Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins as the fountain of all knowledge on biological life has undergone some revision. The new scheme shows multiple bursts of complex life appearing in earth's history, and amazingly, disappearing in many cases just as suddenly.

So the timetable of life is fraught with conflict in the scientific community. Now we ask, what does all this have to do with the age of the earth?

Well, a great mystery, in addition to that just mentioned, is the phenomenon of petrified trees. These trees were buried and replaced by minerals over time, but here's the kicker--they where buried standing up! They go through multiple rock layers and multiple ages of rock.

Scientists say they might have been completely buried, the surrounding rock worn away, and then reburied, layer by layer, but this seems to beg the question a bit. Why should that be the case? Could it be, that layers don't equal times in earth's history? And if so...how do we know how old everything is with certainty?

T-Rex flesh? (Strange facts and Earth's Age part 1)

2008-08-22T20:25:00.000-07:00

I have long loved dinosaurs (I wanted to be a palientologist growing up), and also have had many questions about how the dinos related to my inherited Christian beliefs derived from the Bible (a possibly young earth, the Flood, etc). As a child, I often heard my father say: "A thousand years is like a day to the LORD" (a la 2 Peter 3:8) and "I don't believe we came from monkeys." All I knew for the longest time (from 5 or so to 21) was that I could come to no conclusion on this matter, having no desire to read the literature related to earth-age debate from theologians and apologists, or the scientific community.

After coming to know Christ...my desire to answer some of those old questions returned. Since then, I have read scientists like Stephen J. Gould, young-earth creationists like Henry Morris, IE theorists like William Dembski, and others in search of more information on what the Bible says about the age of the earth and what science says about its age. I have surveyed the strengths of both sets of arguments (the secular and the biblical) and also their weaknesses. What is strange is that both sides can be convincing enough to make you declare at times: "I can see truth here." However, this post is not about my conclusions on the earth's age, it is simply a demonstration of this conflict of ideas as I have encountered them.

First, there was the trip to Ripley's Aquarium at Myrtle Beach in 2003 (I realize the picture is the one in Gatlinburg, which I went to this year). That year on my honeymoon in June, walking through that fascinating display of fish, I encountered the following info on the Nurse Shark:

"Nurse Sharks carry their young and bare them live. While in the womb, the faster developing of the two babies will eventually devour the other en utero."

Horrifying? Yeah, a tad. What immediately shot through my mind was: "Life is a struggle...evolution is a struggle of selection (fittest surviving)...these sharks are already struggling in the womb...the fittest is surviving! Yikes! That's strong evidence for evolution."

I left the aquarium pondering whether evolution might be true after all from that little sign by the shark tank.

Second, there was the day I read on a science website (National Geographic no less) that palientologists had recovered (get this) intact dino flesh...and not just any dino--T REX! They found soft-tissue remains. You can read the article here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

The day I read this, the pendulum took a hard swing toward the no-evolution, younger earth perspective. Soft tissue from an animal not thousands, but many millions of years old? Seems a little suspect. In fact, in that article, the scientist states:

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said."

I am no scientist, but it don't take a genius to say it is utterly strange that meat didn't decay after 40 million years...hmmm...what could this mean? Possibly that dinos aren't as old as we thought?

Do you see the power of the examples? Course there are other examples of this play of ideas in my mind, but I won't go there, seeing this blog is getting too long already. My point would be that there is still so much we don't know scientifically, and that what side in this debate we are inclined to can be overturned quickly by a T-Rex burger or a ravenous baby shark...unless we just believe that "day" equals one solar day in Genesis.

Review of "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Greg Boyd

2008-08-20T19:36:00.000-07:00

Recently on vacation, I picked up Greg Boyd's "The Myth of a Christian Nation." This title sparked my interest, because I, as a evangelical Christian, have often struggled with the relationship between church and state in America.

I have become firmly convinced from historical records that the founding fathers approved of the Christian faith in many ways, though many of them where more deistic than theistic. America also started as a Christian nation in the sense that most of her people have claimed some form of Christianity. Additionally, two major Christian revivals deeply influenced national thought for the more than hundred years as America grew from colony to one of the most powerful nations on earth.

The question Boyd asks of all this is "What is the difference between the nationally recognized form of Christianity throughout American history and Jesus' kingdom--the kingdom of God?" Here Boyd drives a stake between widespread national faith and the faith of Christ. He basically says there is no relationship...zero...and bases his claim on the fact that the kingdoms of this world, whether America or any other have advanced by coercive, self-interested power, whereas the kingdom of God in Christ advances by other-interested, sacrificial love. He says:

"Following the example of Christ, and in stark contrast to the modus operandi of the world, we are to do "nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than ourselves." (pp. 31)

This is his key point, and it is forceful. He uses various evidence from American history to make this point stick, from the Indian Wars to slavery, in order to show that America is much different than the kingdom of God and is really just another kingdom of the world.

I nodded along as I read much of his argument on these points, probably for a couple of reasons. First, during college, it is just these negative points of American history that many of my professors used as arguments against evangelicalism. For some reason, they couldn't help but lump Christ together with the national history of people who have not followed all of His teachings (of course their arguments included the Crusades and Europe's bloody, post-Reformation religious wars, as well, among others). The second reason, I nodded along was because of his many quotations of Christ's teachings on how His followers are to regard others. Jesus did tell us to do good to our enemies rather than forcing them to our position or attacking them. Boyd's practical application of these ideas is that we are not called to force America to abide by Judeo-Christian morality, and consequently, certain moral issues should not be so important to evangelicals as they are (gay marriage, war, or patriotism for instance). As all these arguments stirred my mind, I couldn't help but remember watching Gary Cooper in "Sgt. York," a film where "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" includes military service and killing other human beings (which is antithetical to the statement "do good to them that hate you").

However, I did find some difficulty with Boyd's argument.

First, my biggest question was "Are Christians not to work for a society more in accord with God's moral law, particularly in regard to God's commands for human behavior, if it is within our power?" If we where to go to hell, we would see there many people from Sodom and Gomorrah. Is it not possible that some of these would regret that their society's wickedness was not controlled somehow, allowing them a greater chance to repent back then, instead of the sudden destruction that overtook them? Certain persons might say, those folks would not have repented, so they don't care and they hate God even now, but I think the picture of the rich man in hell in the story Jesus told of he and Lazarus speaks otherwise. I believe that being salt is being a witness to God's Law, His justice, and His wrath, as well as showing Calvary-quality love. To Boyd, what society does does not matter to Christians, so pacificism and love are the only witnesses available to Christians. This is a difficult point to take at face value and needs more complexity from Boyd to be convincing.

Second, beyond the control of the standard of society's laws, there is the doctrine of repentance within the Gospel appeal. This is a deeper issue than influencing legislation, and goes to the heart of what the Gospel is. Predictably, Boyd denies any preaching of judgment to unbelievers. Boyd says, "...when we assume the role of moral guardians of the culture, we invariably position ourselves as judges over others. Not only is there no precedent for this in the life of Jesus, but Scripture explicitly and repeatedly forbids us to judge others....Jesus contrasts love and judgment as antithetical activities...Our fundamental job is to love like God loves, not to pretend we know what only God knows." (pp. 132-133). Boyd goes on to say that we are to preach none of this "judgment" to unbelievers and this is why evangelicals are hated. Excuse me? When is calling something God calls sin wrong? When is preaching against such sin wrong? When is seeking to limit such sin in the lives of others wrong? When is it wrong to call on the consciences of people to do what God commands--no matter how close they are to Christianity? None of these things is wrong, yet Boyd denounces them all. He urges that we build relationships and present the love of Christ only. And it is that "only" that completely overlooks Jesus', the New Testament writers, and the Old Testament writers position on the sin of man and the necessity of repentance. Jonah even preached repentance to Ninevah in the Old Testament for crying out loud. Boyd may want to love people as God loves, but God is in the business of calling all people to repentance (Acts 17).

These two problems were the most prominent to me in this book. I have not provided exhaustive answers to them, but only enough to show that the issues are far more complicated than Boyd would have them. A book may arise that will give Christians a correct sense of their social role in regard to America's civil Christian mores--what to do, and what not...but this book is not it. Though there is something to be said for reading this book, for I wrestled with its implications.

Ruth Colyer: A Faithful Woman

2008-07-22T10:11:00.000-07:00

Ruth Colyer, my mother-in-law, died July 20th, Sunday morning, 2008. Many of you, my readers, have prayed for her and kept watch over her, here and on my other web pages as to her progress during her illness. We are saddened deeply by losing her, but she has gone on to be with the Lord Jesus to His place He has prepared for her. Thank you all for your prayers, your concern, and your faith in our God who decided to bring her home. I wanted to offer a few words of encouragement in light of her death.

1. Ruth came to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as a young girl. I sat with her several years ago as she told me her testimony. She told of how as she sat in church one day, she was convicted of her sin and the truth that Jesus died to pay for her sin. She told me about trusting Him that day, and how that she had never changed her mind about what He did for her. She said she had been following Him since that time, and her life showed it: her love for Him, His church, and His kingdom. She lived a life in which she blessed others for God, not least of them, myself. I was a wandering soul when I began to date her daughter, but Ruth influenced me, by strong example, to follow the path of discipleship that leads to Christian hope. I will thank her for that always, until the day I again see her face.

2. Ruth fulfilled her calling as a Christian mother. She always urged her daughter and husband to follow the way of God. She did the most important thing as a parent, which is to have a Christian home. As an extension of her natural family, she helped raise many other children as a caretaker, helping them to grow physically, mentally, and spiritually. She was a mother to many children, not just Teya, and will be missed by all of them.

3. Ruth endured trial with faith, even when she was shaken. Cancer was a horror for Ruth, and it took away most of her health in this world before she died. She desired to be healed, but was willing to accept that she might not be healed. I prayed with her not long ago, that God might heal her, but if not, He might have mercy on her as her health declined, and that he might help her to endure the great trial that death is. As I prayed, she quietly whispered "amen" to either path God might lead her on.

Like my great-grandmother, I had a mother-in-law that I would say lived "A beautiful life" for her LORD. She, like all people, struggled from time to time, but she focused, at her end, and on the fact that there will be "no tears in heaven" (her words in her last days). My prayer for all of us, is that we would emulate her good qualities, and prepare for the day when we must all meet Christ, and having prepared fully to meet Him, meet Ruth also.

2008-06-12T20:06:00.001-07:00

Life is a struggle. Not only in the broad sense between good and evil, just and unjust, predator and prey, but also in the little things. It is a struggle to do my job right now. It seems things just keep coming up that hinder my plans. I have been nervous, agitated at times, and finally just break into laughter to blow off the steam of how ridiculously complicated life can be. You try to build something (not just buildings-- think your character, your family, your track record of success), and things come along that just blow it all apart, and these blowups can happen frequently.

Now a confession, I have a streak of lazy despair in me. When I struggle, or fail and try to re-route to success in my life, I find that that re-routing is only for a time. Seems like Achebe's title to his piece "Things Fall Apart" fits here, and when things keep falling apart, I want to throw in the towel. I want to be lazy, or fall into some depressed funk. Yet, I know that my life is more important than the mistakes I make along the way, what matters a heap load is what kind of person I become in this process. Do I become that cynical, apathetic soul? Or do I gather my courage and man-up? Do I allow the struggle to shape me into Christ-likeness or do I take the easy way and fall apart too? I know what I got to do, because God doesn't allow us to live in a problematic world for no reason. I know He lets us live in this kind of world because how we respond to it is proof of what He can do when things dismantle before our eyes--that is He is the Rock in this stormy sea. When we cling to Him his grace shines. It's not that we can conquer all our problems, but that through Him I can have faith that ultimately, problems will not make us fall entirely, rather we fall into His arms, and everybody will see what holds us up when nothing else does.

soli deo gloria

Michael Horton on Charles Finney

2008-05-31T11:22:00.000-07:00

Michael Horton is a distinguished professor at Westminster Seminary. He wrote a short article I read recently on Charles Finney, American evangelist of the 19th century. I will come back to Finney's effects on American Christianity later, but suffice to say, he has deeply influenced all of Protestantism in America since before and after the Civil War, through his writings and teachings about such topics as Christian conversion and revival.

Horton quotes the following from Charles Grandison Finney (Systematic Theology, pg. 46):

"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd... As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners ... As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ’s obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us."

Let me put this in layman's terms:

The idea that people who break God's law can be legally declared "not-guilty" (by God), is impossible and foolish...I will show you that there are many conditions for a person to be declared righteous by God, but all these are based upon one root condition...As I have already said, law-breakers cannot be said to be "not-guilty" (as by a jury, judge, or God)...there is no such law-breaker freeing verdict given by anyone, rather, the one condition for being declared "not-guilty" is whole-hearted, completely fulfilled, and constant (for all of life) obedience to the moral law of God. This idea, of course, is denied by those who say that Gospel declaration of repenting law-breakers means that God calls such repenting law-breakers "not-guilty," (often called judicial justification). They hold to the legal idea that a person may have another person do something to take his or her legal obligation (his obedience or punishment for example), and therefore that Christ's obedience may be said to be ours, because he obeyed God for us.

This paragraph, which I have tried to paraphrase rightly, reveals that Finney could not abide the idea of one person fulfilling another person's moral obligations to God's law--even if it was Jesus Christ! Never mind that the moral law flows from God's character and that God has shown in both OT and NT scripture that He allows one person to take another person's moral obligations!

Romans 3:21-26 does not show God calling a person "not-guilty" on the basis of their moral behavior...no way! This whole section says that a person's "faith" or trust in Christ's death for himself/herself is the way a person is declared "not-guilty." In other words, God gave Christ as a gracious substitute for law-breakers and law-breakers embrace Him as their substitute in order to be declared "not-guilty" of their deeds.

Paul even goes on and says: "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By one of works? No, the contrary, by a law of faith." (Rom. 3:27 HCSB).

Still with me? Does it sound like Finney was in line with the Bible? That's right! He taught error instead of the truth concerning the most important doctrines...how guilty law-breakers are to be relieved of the guilt of their wrongdoings. This is a very serious error...in fact, it is the most serious error...it is the error of the Pharisees of Jesus day: Trying to get right with God by good behavior!

As I said before, Finney is revered among many evangelicals, Horton says:..."Jerry Falwell calls him "one of my heroes and a hero to many evangelicals, including Billy Graham." I can add to this testimony, as I was listening to Dr. James Dobson one night on the radio and he commended Finney on his radio program by reporting a positive testimony of someone converted under Finney's ministry. If you ever read "Hell's Best Kept Secret" or "The Way of the Master" materials (by Ray Comfort), you will find he deeply respects Finney too.

Despite what I have shared with you here about Finney's understanding of salvation, many evangelicals blindly see him as a great man...and in the human sense, he probably provoked many to better behavior. Yet, tragically, he did not give people what they needed, the Word of God on salvation that would save their souls...he left them hoping to reach heaven by works--utter folly.

Finney is worth investigating also because of his lasting impact on the church. Ever heard of a church altar call? That's Finney's baby. Ever wonder when the sinner's prayer began to be highly popularized in America? Finney again. Ever wonder where modern revivals that focus on getting people to "get right with God" (in behavior) and which focus on people's emotions to get them to respond to God come from? Finney a third time. He didn't invent these things by himself, except the alter call, but all are children of his view of sinners getting right with God by behavior.

I would say finally, that all these things were well intentioned...but woefully off base in their origin. The Gospel itself is a command to repent and have faith in Christ alone for salvation; Finney put the focus on the quality of the individual's repentance, in fact, all the load for salvation is based on the individual's behavior. Therefore, Finney's system leads to both pride (for the morally strong) and despair (for the morally weaker sort), and both pride and despair have wreaked havoc on the preaching of the Gospel in America.

Many called Christians and churches have based salvation on the strength of the moral impulse. In other words, particular conformity to a Christian group's scruples becomes a substitute in salvation for the brokeness, humility, and love toward God that ought to characterize true salvation. It's not that Christ didn't give commands for us to carry out, but many in the American church (because of Finney) have added to them and required near behavioral perfection in the Christian life or adaption to a particular group's commands as the basis of whether a person is Christian or not. No wonder that we have pride in the American church. No wonder that we don't reach out with the true Gospel as we ought. Many of us are confused. Charles Finney has lent us part of our Christian legacy in America, and that legacy is tainted with dangerous error.

Here is the link to Horton's article: http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar81.htm

A poem inspired by Dylan Thomas

2008-05-23T23:03:00.000-07:00

Do Not Go Lonely Into That Coming Night

Do not go lonely into that coming night,
A soul should seek company at close of day;
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

Though worldly wise then know that way is right,
Yet, their homegrown wisdom has no sight, they'll say:
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

Good folks, their deeds in scales bouncing, ever slight
Flawed deeds hold little weight on that day, they'll say:
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

Wild ones, who merry made in sunny day light,
They learn, alas, they wasted life in delay, they'll say:
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

Grave souls, near death, who see with blinded sight
Blind eyes, missed the Blaze, Torch of Days, they'll say:
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

And you, my belov'd, there in dark vale's gate,
Call, bless me now with your broken tears, I pray.
Do not go lonely into the coming night.
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

(This poem was inspired by Dylan Thomas. Thomas was a hard-drinking writer, and his intent was to express his desire that his father not regret death. My view of the world is quite different than Thomas' and consequently, my fears for those who die depart from his, though my poem's form is the same)

Thank God

2008-05-21T21:09:00.000-07:00

I want to say thank you to God. He is so good to me--"Thank you Lord." I can't say enough about Him: he chose me in Him (Jesus Christ) before the world was made, he called me from death to life, he made me right with him through the gifts of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ...He gave me my physical being and my soul...He has given me my wonderful family, my friends, my church family. He is caring for our physical needs through the job He has provided, and has protected us from harm. He is walking with us through our trials.

Lord, thank you for being in my life..I love you.

Greg

When I Get Where I'm Goin

2008-05-21T20:51:00.000-07:00

Lately, certain songs have touched my heart deeply. This is one of those songs...my heart literally aches with joy and sadness when I hear this song. Christians ought to be happy to be "going somewhere," which happens to be the abode of God--the Son, Jesus Christ, His Father, and of the Holy Ghost, not only that, but there is the hope of seeing those gone on there, and that place is devoid of the many things that make us hurt here. The key (or door to use His words) is our Lord Jesus Christ--no man comes to the Father or that place without the Son. He demands our lives, but promises a greater life in return--life with Him forever.

Update on Ruthie

2008-05-19T15:04:00.000-07:00

This is to catch you guys up on my mother-in-law Ruth Colyer. I ask you all to continue to pray for her and for us and those around the family (friends and church family who are helping to care for her). She has finished radiation on her brain. MRI scans showed she has gallstones, and some more cancer growth. She needs your prayers for strength because she will soon embark on another round of chemo treatments for these growths. Pray for her physical comfort, as she is hurting badly from time to time. Also pray for her spiritual and physical strength as she goes through these difficult days, that she might be able to go successfully through treatment. Again, we are still praying for a miracle (Is anything to hard for the Lord?), so continue to pray and don't give up...we never know what can happen when we pray!

Love to all of you brothers and sisters,

Greg

Bye Sarah (part 2)

2008-05-19T15:02:00.001-07:00

This is a post to again say an updated goodbye to our beloved Sarah Logsdon. Sarah, you have done so much for us at Community and we love you and thank you sister. May the Lord bless you wherever you go and may he make your time with your family fruitful!

After the World

2008-05-15T20:08:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite bands for a while has been Disciple. This band is heavy heavy Christian rock (though some of you might say "no way!"). Anyways, this band puts a few acoustic songs on its records and its latest record, Scars Remain, contains this gem called "After the World". This song touches my heart, because it is about how the Lord is there leading us to Him, no matter what. It breaks my heart every time I hear them sing "...did I create, the rhythm your heart makes" because it does so many things to my mind...I remember Dad and how God created and appointed the day for his heart to cease beating, how that one day my heart will stop beating and I must face my Maker and Savior, and how that all these things give glory to God. Perhaps the song won't matter so much to you, but I commend it nonetheless...

You break the glass, try to hide your face
Recorded lines that just will not erase
And buried in your loss of innocence
You wonder if you'll find it again

Was I there for the worst of all your pain?
And was I there when your blue sky ran away?
Was I there when the rains were flooding you?
I hope you feel those were My tears falling down for you, falling down for you

I'm the One that you've been looking for
I'm the One that you've been waiting for
I've had My eyes on you ever since you were born
I will love you after the rain falls down
I will love you after the sun goes out
I'll have My eyes on you after the world is no more

Did I arrange the light of your first day?
Did I create the rhythm your heart makes?
Could you believe when your candle starts to fade?
I want to be the One that you believe
Could take it all away, take your heart away

Isn't My life a clear sign since I have crossed over this chasm
To fill the space between Me and you?
And I will do it all over again
Just look for Me, just wait for Me

The One you've been looking for
The One you've been waiting for
You won't have to look anymore

What's happening to the church?

2008-05-15T19:15:00.001-07:00

Since I have been a Christian, several different views of the church have been mine.

First, when I was young, my view of the church was very limited, being confined to my local congregation, though I was not an active member till later in life. I had no thought as to what was going on in the wider church scene in America, nor did I know anything about other congregations except those stories and other tidbits given by visiting evangelists (in fact, I didn't think of evangelists as pastors--though many of them were!) I did not know or care if the church was growing in America...the things I knew that were most important to me about church were: 1) Jesus is God and Savior and He needs to "save" you if you want to go to heaven 2) That one should go to church 3) That I did not believe some things that science taught (like human evolution) because of my faith in the Bible.

I knew only the basics and continued that way for years. One other aspect in which I understood the God of my church was through conscience--in effect, I was a sinner that needed to be saved and I felt in my conscience when I did evil. I also came to believe that I was not saved after I was 17 or so because of the wickedness in my life.

It is at this point that I give you my second view of the church: something of which I did not want to be part. As I said, my life spiraled into sin and my conscience screamed that I was without the love of God. I had horrible nightmares about being separated from God. In the midst of all this, I refused to go to church because I wanted to get away from it. I figured that my conscience and raising would be dulled if I could ignore the church. I never could completely ignore the church, though.

The third way I looked at the church was as a necessary evil. My wife, whom I love asked me to go with her to church as a precondition when we began dating. I grudgingly agreed, and for the first time in many a year entered the corridors of my childhood church weekly. At first, I was not accustomed to the church as I had been...in fact, I was less worried about the church itself and more worried about Teya.

Then it happened...I was called by God to repent...my forth view of the church was born...I saw the church as my brothers and sisters and a body of which I was definitey a part and to which I definitely belonged. I loved the church (and still do). Upon entering this dynamic part of my Christian life, I began to recognize the efforts of churches across America, the state of the church in America, and other broader concerns. I had come a long way from the particular, traditional, and simple, to the world-wide, the dynamic, and the more complex in my view of the church.

How do I view the church now? Stay tuned...

Construction Work and the Bible

2008-05-07T19:21:00.000-07:00

One of the favorite bits of wisdom that my late father used to share with me when I was young was that, regarding school, "its just like a house...first you pour a good foundation...that's what grade school is like Greg...that's why it is necessary to try to do well now!," he would say. Dad was a construction worker most of his life. Master plumber to be exact (and a darn good one to :) He was using Jesus technique of teaching truth by common analogy--taking his life and what I knew of it, and giving me encouragement on the purpose of early education through a picture of a house being built.

Having grown up, I have lost Dad's immediate presence for now but tonight I am thinking about his lesson in the context of what the Bible says about construction work. Actually, there is more than you might think...which is also interesting to me, since I am a plumber and construction worker too.

One of the first incidences of construction work in the Bible the building of the Ark by Noah (Gen. 6-9). A construction project was the assignment for Noah, the object of God's command to obedience for him. He had to build a boat to survive the Flood! Interesting that construction work is given a positive spin here in the Bible! This is a story of salvation. Just a few chapters earlier, we find another story about construction: "Cain...he built a city, he called the name of the city after his son, Enoch." (Gen. 4:17). This story shows construction work in a negative light, as the civilization of Cain's family would be completely destroyed, despite their technical competence, because they ignored the Lord God. So one way in which construction work is used in the Bible is its use as a picture of faith or unbelief. Depends on what one is building...it is no wonder that Jesus used two men building houses to picture a life of faith in Him and a life without such faith (Matt. 7).

Another way construction work is addressed in the Bible is regarding its use in sanctification (making God's people like Him through the course of life--not the same as "salvation" in the sense of forgiveness of sin). Exodus 35-40 give a detailed record of the contributions for, the builders of, and the blueprint of God's place of worship given to Moses for the Hebrew people. The purpose of the tabernacle, God's place of worship, was that the people might have a divinely appointed means of expressing their love for Him and service to Him. Many commentators have noted that the tabernacle of Moses was a picture of Christ: after all, Jesus transferred the meaning (in a sense), to Himself, when he said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19), and this means that Christ, like the temple, is the appointed way, truth, and life, through which we relate to God, and through which we grow in Him. Paul puts it this way: "no one can lay any other foundation, than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ.." (I Cor. 3:11).

So there's at least two pictures: I'll give a third and rest. This picture is the way the Bible pictures the church of Jesus...it is a construction project...and Jesus is the project manager, the contractor, the mechanic, and the laborer that builds us into a body of people that love each other in their common salvation in Christ. Paul says "You are...God's building" (I Cor. 3:9), and also says in Ephesians: "...you are fellow citizens with saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." (Eph. 2: 20-22). What about that? The body of Christ's members have been saved individually by building on Him--they continue individually in their spiritual walk by building on the foundation of Christ in sanctification (growth in holiness), and they are built together, by the Lord, through His appointed means, into a holy temple in which they are living stones that cry out "Hosanna...blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!" (Matt. 21:9), and in whom, through the Spirit, Christ dwells, builds, and fashions!

Well, that is all for now. Construction work is given a prominent place in the metaphorical usage of the Bible to demonstrate spiritual truth. Thank God for using my lowly occupation (or if you must, the broader category my occupation is part of) in order to teach eternal truth. Thanks even more to my Father for giving me a sure foundation on which I can stand and have been standing at least since age 21. Like the words of the hymn:

"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, is held for your faith in His excellent Word; what more can He say, than to you He hath said, to you who to Jesus for refuge have fled."

God bless

Greg

Childhood Conversion

2008-05-05T21:52:00.000-07:00

Basically, here is a one sentence summation of my intent in the poll I offered ealier in the year on salvation experience: Is there really any way to tell if childhood conversion is for real, if it is followed by a long season of departure from the faith? Furthermore, is it possible to verify childhood conversion considering most of the people who believed they where saved at a young age totally ignore Christ and spurn Him at some point for a while (much longer than Peter's short defection)?

I wouldn't make an issue out of this if everybody saved young didn't experience this kind of departure from LORD! I mean, it is near uniform in many cases...declared saved at 8-12 years old in SBC church by "coming forward to confess Christ" then later, the person becomes in many ways what is opposed to Christ. What gives?

Here is my initial impression: a lot of childhood conversions are bogus. Later in your life, many, many of the people who are supposedly converted as children do business with God that becomes the basis of their Christian life. Most do not (as, for example, James Dobson), remain faithful from their young age.

This is all I've got for now, but promise to continue this topic in a little while.

Blessings,

Greg

Ruth Post Surgery

2008-04-16T18:42:00.001-07:00

Thanks again for those of you who pray for my mother-in-law, Ruth Colyer. She has come successfully through her surgery. She is recovering at the hospital. Please continue to pray that God would continue to be with her, heal her body, comfort her pain, and be strengthening her in every way in Christ.

In Christ,

Greg

Another word on Ruth

2008-04-13T21:24:00.000-07:00

OK, a quick word for my prayers on my mother-in-law Ruth. Her cancer continues to give her trouble. She has a spot on the occipital (back part) of her brain to be removed Tues. around 7am. Pray for her healing. Pray for her recovery (Dr.'s are optimistic). Pray the doctors would be instruments in God's hands to heal her. Pray that He would go beyond what they can do and do a miracle. Most of all, remember to pray for strengthening of her faith in Jesus and trust of Him--because she is going through a trial. In the end, that we trust Him is more important than any temporary healing or temporary comfort in this world. Remember:

This world is not my home, I'm just passing through.
My treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue.
The angels beckon me from Heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore.

Chorus
O Lord you know I have no friend like you
If Heaven's not my home, then Lord what will I do?
The angels beckon me from Heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore.

God bless you all!

Bye to Sarah Logston

2008-04-13T21:01:00.001-07:00

Sarah Logsdon is leaving Community Baptist Church! We love you Sarah and hate to see you go. We also want to say, God be with you. Come back and visit when you can.

Arrested Hearing

2008-04-13T20:55:00.000-07:00

My goodness! I was so stupid as a teenager listening to music! I absolutely listened to music for the sound and not the message. For instance, I would listen to "Highway to Hell," knowing good and well Jesus didn't like it. When I was listening to GnR's "You Could Be Mine," (remember Terminator 2 fans?), a song with little spiritual worth (or none), the above song by Arrested Development was on the radio. I liked this single "Tennessee," quite a bit, but not nearly as much as my stupid rock-n-roll. Now, after like 13 years, I see this video, and its all about God's guidance of the singers life!? Ironic what you can't hear when you're not listening for it, huh?

The Living Dead

2008-03-31T19:11:00.000-07:00

Recently watched "I am Legend," with Will Smith. Talk about intense. The movie didn't have much music, so when something scary happened, it just knocked the socks right off of you. The main antagonists of this film were zombie/undead type characters (though I'm not going to let the movie out of the bag completely).

There's got to be something to this pattern of zombie/derranged-undead type creature movies that have been so common in the theaters in the last 50 or so years. There was "28 Days Later," and "Dawn of the Dead," and "Shawn of the Dead," and "Dawn of the Dead 2," and then came "28 Weeks Later," and on and on it goes. That crazy Romero guy that invented the zombie genre with "Night of the Living Dead" must be pretty proud.

So why do the living dead both fascinate and scare us at the same time? Could it be because we embody something of them, even though our flesh is vibrant and not falling off at the moment? Could it be that in these movies, we some faint reflection of ourselves as human beings that though alive must cope with the reality that one day, we will die, and it won't be pretty?

I can't say, but I know one thing--without God interrupting our world with the Gospel--all we can look forward to is the torture of an unknowing approach to death and the cold grip of its chilling effects, with no hope of life--no hope of personality--a descent into non-existence that confuses, frightens, and frustrates people everywhere. That is the natural state of our minds in regard to our mortality...unless there is another answer. Ephesians says of the lost (those without saving knowledge of the God of the Bible through Christ): "you...who were dead in trespasses and sins." (2:1). So! There it is! We are dead normally! Furthermore, when the Bible refers to hell, it speaks of unending death--the "second death" (Rev. 21:8), where "Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:47).

Our world is overhung by the shadow of death. We live in a world of walking dead...

Unless we know the Gospel and the Hope it gives in the Son Jesus Christ--
Ephesians goes on and says that death is not the end if we come to know God: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, (He) made us alive together with Christ" (2:5).

Actually, we do live in "The Land of the Dead," but today you can trust Christ who can make you alive. You "who sat in the region and shadow of death," (Matt. 4:16) may be made alive in Him today--He is the living One amongst the zombie hoards.

I'm terrible at blogging!

2008-03-27T19:34:00.000-07:00

I never write anything.

Reflections on My Last Poll

2008-03-15T18:38:00.000-07:00

Just so you guys don't think that I've forgotten to talk about the poll on salvation experiences, I wanted to say a quick word. The poll was almost uniform in the number of people who said that they had had a salvation-type experience as a child that they did not consider to be their true saving entrance into a relationship with Jesus Christ. One person replied that they had always kept following Jesus since they had been saved. I was surprised that I did not have a reader that was saved at a young age and that fell away for a season and then returned, through repentance, to Christ. Frankly, I expected more than one of these responses.

My main question that I want to ask on this subject next time is this: How can a young professing Christian tell the difference between the discipline of God on their life for unfaithfulness and regular pangs of conscience and guilt they feel for violating a norm of their childhood?

Now in one sense, the only answer to any wayward person is "repent...now!" In this way, Baptists and Methodists have more in common than one might think at first, regarding their view of how to deal with unfaithful professing Christians. However, when we get back to my main question, something else important arises:

Can we know the difference between the troubled conscience of a religious lost person and the conviction of sin and discipline that attends the disobedience of the faithful?

I'll give you a chance to sound off. I'll post next time on my studies of this topic.

Update on Ruthie

2008-03-08T14:52:00.000-08:00

My mother-in-law received some bad news this weekend from a CAT scan, but the bad news was tempered by a little good news. The bad news is as follows:

1. She has a blood clot on her renal (kidney) blood vessel (dangerous to the heart/lungs).
2. This clot is probably caused by an as-yet unidentified growth near her kidney, which is also causing her back pain.
3. She has a tumor growing again on her cervix (I think this is right, but I'm not totally sure).
4. She has cancerous nodules (small tumors) on her lungs, and fluid on her lungs.

The good news was the following:

1. Ruth is already been placed on blood thinners to lessen the danger from the clot.
2. Doctors may put a filter in her vessel to lessen the danger from clot rupture.
3. She can now receive specific treatments for these as-yet unidentified tumors (the doctor was upbeat about her condition because the immediate danger (the clots) is now being treated). Ruth will undergo chemotherapy soon for the cancer. As yet, I do not know the status for future surgeries (beyond the filter).

Continue to pray. Cancer is a spiritual battle as well as a physical one. Thank you all for all your prayers thus far.

Christ be with you all.

Greg

Snow Is Like...

2008-02-27T04:32:00.000-08:00

"To those who send him,
a trustworthy messenger
is like the coolness of snow
on a harvest day;
he refreshes the life of his masters."

Prov. 25:13

(Keep in mind that harvest is in the warm season in Israel. Snow would've felt good then, huh? So faithfulness in doing one's task is like a refreshing coolness on a hot day to those for whom one does it. Nice to know that under Christ, this applies to our carrying the Gospel message for God too.)

Plagiarism: Does It Apply to Preachers?

2008-02-24T13:52:00.000-08:00

I have heard various opinions from various folks on whether it was right or not for a preacher to borrow material from another preacher. Some people said, "No, I can't believe a preacher would need to listen to anybody but God in writing a sermon!" Other folks said, "Awww...its truth man, and it don't change. Therefore nobody is really stealing anything right?" And so the opinions went...

It is interesting that a preacher must interpret the text of the Bible in a way that bears the fruit of listener understanding, but at the same his words are supposed to be exactly those he has been told or read from the Bible (under the divine reminder of the Holy Spirit).

Interestingly, I have been listening to some material about the Puritans, and the speaker (JI Packer) put forward the statement that back in the days before the rise of modern methods of scholarship, nobody gave a hoot about plagiarism. To prove his point, he recited the following poem that used to be popular in later Victorian England.

There was once a preacher named Spurgie
Who hated the English liturgy
But his sermons are fine, I use them as mine,
And so do the rest of the clergy.

God bless!

Update on Ruthie

2008-02-23T08:35:00.000-08:00

Dear readers,

My mother-in-law has underwent five weeks of radiation therapy, plus two extremely intense, compacted chemotherapy treatments. She is especially tired this week, because of the chemo, and will now rest until March at her house. She has had tests this week to see if the treatments are helping with results pending sometime next week. A preliminary encouraging sign of answered prayers is that her heart murmur (caused by the tumor in her heart) has lessened to the point of inaudibility. This means the tumor is probably shrinking--praise the Lord! Continue your diligent prayers for Ruthie as she rests that God would continue to bless and heal her. Our God can do anything and we continue to pray for our Father's miraculous intervention in this case.

God bless

New Name

2008-02-23T08:26:00.000-08:00

Being that I don't keep up this blog at anything resembling a daily rate, I will be changing the name of the blog. I do promise, however, to henceforth post at least twice a week. Lately, I have had the flu, and have been enjoying my rest immensely, this is at least one reason for my tardiness in posting. God bless you all.

Throwing Evangelists a Bone

2008-02-04T12:59:00.000-08:00

This quick post is an effort to balance what I said earlier in my post "Evangelists Feel the Heat." I must say that I thank God for revivalism and its evangelists in a few ways.

First, the passionate, powerful preaching of the Gospel, so long as the major biblical elements are included, is both necessary for the salvation of sinners and a wonderful grace of God.

Second, though revivalism has produced some unwanted side-effects, it has also been used by God to bring about the salvation of many souls.

Thirdly, many evangelists inflate their numbers and the quality of the responses at their meetings, but many do not. Those evangelists with integrity are to be commended as fruitful and Christlike members of the Lord's church.

Fourthly, evangelists focus on some of the most basic (and important) of Christian doctrines in their preaching. Not all Calvinists are like John Piper--passionate for the lost and the church. In fact, many a Calvinist church has not borne fruit, but nuts. This is a sad state of affairs, but many people who are attracted to Calvinism in our modern day do develop an un-biblical balance in their presentation of the Gospel, focusing more on the deep doctrines of the Bible (God's sovereignty/providence; God's decrees in the order of salvation; Covenant theology) than on the basic Gospel message that is continually found in the Scripture in the person and work of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, including God's holiness, man's sinfulness, the wrath of God against sinners, Christ's sacrifice for sin, the commands to mankind to repent and believe, and the importance of simple obedience and faith in practical, everyday living for average folks. Many Calvinist churches need to reclaim a sense of urgency for the lost in their basic presentation of the Gospel.

So, as with almost all things under the sun, there is good and bad in revivalism and the evangelists that support and practice it. We ought to thank God for the good and use our influence to address the bad with a Christlike mind and intention to change it.

New Poll: Salvation Experience

2008-02-01T21:32:00.000-08:00

Much confusion exists in evangelical Christian circles about the salvation of children. Basically, a great percentage of childhood converts do not flower into full disciples (followers) of Jesus Christ and his Word. Some of these later become legitimate followers of Jesus Christ. I'd like to pick my readers brains a bit on this topic with a new poll (on the lower right). The purpose of this poll is to set up a future blog discussion on the difference between consciousness of sin and true conviction of sin in a believer's life.

"Pastor Be Honest"

2008-02-01T21:06:00.000-08:00

Calvinism is a hot-button issue today, what with its promotion by John Piper and others in an America that often doesn't want to hear about this topic. A recent poll showed that 30% of graduates from a certain SBC seminary (Southern?) are Calvinist in theology.

Of course, many an evangelical Christian has unknowingly fallen in love with JI Packer's "Knowing God" over the years, and he is a staunch Calvinist (and a wonderful theologian).

So there is a conflict. Many churches do not want a Calvinist pastor, but many Calvinist pastors are going out into the ministry. My poll that has been up for a month is a question on how forthcoming a pastor candidate ought to be with a church about his personal views on these deep theological issues. This poll only got nine votes, but it was something like 8 to 1 in favor of total pastoral honesty on the Calvinism/Arminianism issue. The people who are reading my blog have spoken: "Pastor--be honest about your theological convictions with those to whom you minister ."

Evangelists Feel the Heat

2008-02-01T14:15:00.000-08:00

These are turbulent times for SBC evangelists. The progress of modern culture has created a climate in which evangelism tactics from Great Awakening #2 are being questioned (the purpose of revival meetings, public invitations with heavy emotional/decisional emphasis, the use of evangelists for revivals, etc.) by many SBC pastors. At least two reasons for this are 2nd Great Awakening revivalism's lack of doctrinal depth and accuracy and inability to create a culture of intimate Christian fellowship in a today's society. More educated than previous generations and more disconnected from traditional community moorings than ever, younger folks hanker after doctrinal substance and true fellowship in the church. The Calvinist resurgence and the rise of the Seeker Sensitive movement parallel these needs.

Recently in my state's convention paper, 'The Western Recorder," there was an article in which a particular group of SBC evangelists that meet in association blamed both the rise of Calvinistic theology and the Seeker Sensitive paradigm in our day as culprits that have led to the decreasing success of revivalistic theology and practice. The problem with their criticism of Calvinism is that some of those involved with this evangelist meeting made inaccurate statements about the Calvinist movement. Some examples:

Hal Poe, professor of faith and culture at Union University in Jackson, TN, said about Calvinist pastor John Piper:

"...John Piper's version of Calvinism is not something John Calvin would espouse, or even that Charles Spurgeon would espouse."

Jerry Drace, evangelist, "told the group he currently is working with some young pastors who are "so leaning in this morphed Calvinism that they almost laugh at evangelism. It's almost to the extent that they believe they don't have to do it. So (Calvinism) gives them an excuse not to do evangelism."
(Western Recorder; January 22, 2008; pp. 2)

The first statement is a smear on John Piper because it paints him as a radical who is far different than Calvin or Spurgeon. I wonder how Poe would explain this major difference between Piper, Calvin, and Spurgeon in terms of soteriology? I don't think he can. Nor can Drace say all Calvinist pastors are unevangelistic. Perhaps he has encountered a few hyper/non-witnessing Calvinist pastors, but he is dead wrong about all Calvinist pastors being against evangelism. His statement is absurd. In fact John Piper says the following about evangelism for the Calvinist pastor:

"4. Make Spurgeon and Whitefield your models rather than Owen or Calvin, because the former were evangelists and won many people to Christ in a way that is nearer to our own day.

5. Be an evangelist and a missions mobilizer so that the criticism that Calvinism dulls a passion for the lost is put to silence."

Piper's writing on this is available at the following link: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1998/1509_How_to_Teach_and_Preach_Calvinism/

Stupid criticisms aside, one strong positive came from this evangelist's meeting:

These evangelists have begun to examine evangelism as a practice and have concluded that there is a lack of integrity in their own ranks. Of particular importance are evangelist's inflation of numbers of respondents at their events and also evangelist's exaggeration the quality of decisions made by these respondents. These evangelists have begun to realize that many times, they emotionally manipulate people into one-time, shallow, non-discipleship, verbal commitments. This realization is good. Perhaps they will come to the next set of logical conclusions about their method of evangelism: 1) there is something wrong with it, because of the shallowness of so many "conversions," and also that 2) their soul-winning model has played havoc in a rapidly changing world over the last 60 or so years, as SBC pastors have imitated it in the local church, creating an army of dechurched, uncommitted, careless professing Christians who have loads of confidence in a one-time decision, but little biblical basis for their status as disciples (followers of Christ and His word's) in their day-to-day lives!

Trying to Force God's Hand: The Birth of Ichabod

2008-01-21T16:33:00.000-08:00

In 1 Samuel 4, we have a scripture that I have never heard a sermon on. I don't intend to write one here, but will offer a few points after I post the text.

1 Samuel 4:1-22 (KJV)
And the word of Samuel came to all Israel. Now Israel went out against the Philistines to battle, and pitched beside Eben-ezer: and the Philistines pitched in Aphek. [2] And the Philistines put themselves in array against Israel: and when they joined battle, Israel was smitten before the Philistines: and they slew of the army in the field about four thousand men.
[3] And when the people were come into the camp, the elders of Israel said, Wherefore hath the Lord smitten us to day before the Philistines? Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of Shiloh unto us, that, when it cometh among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies. [4] So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims: and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God. [5] And when the ark of the covenant of the Lord came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang again. [6] And when the Philistines heard the noise of the shout, they said, What meaneth the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews? And they understood that the ark of the Lord was come into the camp. [7] And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore. [8] Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness. [9] Be strong, and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews, as they have been to you: quit yourselves like men, and fight.
[10] And the Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, and they fled every man into his tent: and there was a very great slaughter; for there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen. [11] And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain.
[12] And there ran a man of Benjamin out of the army, and came to Shiloh the same day with his clothes rent, and with earth upon his head. [13] And when he came, lo, Eli sat upon a seat by the wayside watching: for his heart trembled for the ark of God. And when the man came into the city, and told it, all the city cried out. [14] And when Eli heard the noise of the crying, he said, What meaneth the noise of this tumult? And the man came in hastily, and told Eli. [15] Now Eli was ninety and eight years old; and his eyes were dim, that he could not see. [16] And the man said unto Eli, I am he that came out of the army, and I fled to day out of the army. And he said, What is there done, my son? [17] And the messenger answered and said, Israel is fled before the Philistines, and there hath been also a great slaughter among the people, and thy two sons also, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead, and the ark of God is taken. [18] And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. And he had judged Israel forty years.
[19] And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered: and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her. [20] And about the time of her death the women that stood by her said unto her, Fear not; for thou hast born a son. But she answered not, neither did she regard it. [21] And she named the child I-chabod (lit. "the glory is gone"), saying, The glory is departed from Israel: because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father in law and her husband. [22] And she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken.

Notice there are four elements to this text:

1. The Israelites assumed that God will help them to victory because of the presence of the ark, for it was God's means of leading the Israelites to victory and fruitfulness in earlier times (Numbers 10:34-36).

2. The Israelites ignored that state of the priesthood and their nation's relationship to the holy God in making this assumption. Their priests were Eli and his sons, and these priests were despising God's offerings and His holiness at the tabernacle (1 Sam. 2:12-17).

3. The Israelites were soundly defeated because they did not examine their relationship with God before they used the ark.

4. Eli's daughter-in-law described the state of the defeated and now ark-less Israel--God's glory was gone from them and their land.

There is a lesson for the Church in this:

1. We must not assume that God will help us win our various spiritual battles because we apply those things he commanded us to use in living a sanctified life: prayer, Bible study, corporate worship, evangelism, giving, and other spiritual disciplines in our Christian lives. These can be tools to help win the victory, but only if we regard God's holiness with faith and repentance when using them.

2. When we ignore God's holiness, we vainly apply His appointed means of fruitfulness in the Christian life ignorantly assuming sanctification and spiritual victory will be forthcoming.

3. The result of such action is a defeated life. Like the Israelites, we are often cast down because of our assumption that God must help us through His appointed means of sanctification.

4. A defeated life is one from which God's glory has departed. A believer without victory in the Christian life does not show forth God's glory. Constant defeat in a believer's attitude and actions does not show Christ overcoming the world in that person's life.

In the end, no victory in the Christian life is possible without proper regard for God's personal holiness. God is no light switch we turn on through our use of His appointed means of sanctification.

Along these same lines, Francis Schaeffer said in his "True Spirituality":

"...it is obvious that there is no mechanical solution to true spirituality or the true Christian life. Anything that has the mark of the mechanical upon it is a mistake. It is not possible to say, "Read so many of the chapters of the Bible every day, and you will have this much sanctification." It is not possible to say, "Pray so long every day, and you will have a certain amount of sanctification." It is not possible to add the two together and to say, "You will have this big piece of sanctification." This is purely mechanical solution, and it denies the whole Christian position. For the fact is that the Christian life, true spirituality, can never have a mechanical solution. The real solution is being cast up into the moment-by-moment communion, personal communion, with God himself, and letting Christ's truth flow through me through the agency of the Holy Spirit." (pp. 78).

It is impossible to force God's hand to bring spiritual victory to us by simply using the means of sanctification He has provided. We must regard His holiness in the use of the means of sanctification.

Update 2 on Ruthie

2008-01-21T16:20:00.000-08:00

Thanks for praying friends,

Ruth is feeling a bit better and has just enjoyed her second weekend at home after a diagnosis of cancer of the heart three weeks ago. I have a theology that embraces suffering as part of God's plan (1 Peter 4:13) as something that God uses in the life of Christians to conform them to Christ's image. However, I encourage those of you who pray and share this view of Scripture with me that I also believe in a God of miraculous healing (James 5:15). My friends, in light of this, I encourage you to continue to pray for miraculous healing from our Lord that He might receive the glory in Ruth's life.

Ruthie is ready to enter perhaps her most difficult week of treatment with chemotherapy being included in the regimen of treatment. Please keep praying, and love and thanks in Christ always.

Christian Grief

2008-01-21T14:11:00.000-08:00

Having recently lost my father, I am in the grieving process. It is hard. When your world changes radically, you must change to adapt to the new reality. Here are some of my observations about grieving.

1. Sadness, depression, longing, and even anger are normal human emotions in a fallen world and normal expressions of grieving. In the following Scripture, Jesus acknowledges sorrow as a normal accompaniment of grief. Though Jesus does not address every emotion related to grieving here, it is pertinent to remember that He also knows and acknowledges our other emotions related to grieving because of His omniscience.

"So you will also have sorrow now. But I will see you again." --John 16:22

2. Grief is meant by God to be shared--not shunned. Paul commands Christian disciples to share one another's pain the best they can, because all are brothers and sisters in Christ and all are one body.

"...Weep with those who weep." --Romans 12:15
"So if one of the members suffers, all the members suffer with it..." --I Cor. 12:26

3. Grief is temporary, therefore, the Christian is to fight against feelings of despair (loss of hope) that accompany grief. Christ commands us to look to our future hope of seeing Him.

"So you also have sorrow now. But I will see you again. Your hearts will rejoice, and no one will rob you of your joy." --John 16:22

4. Grief over lost loved ones is very painful, but the Scripture testifies our Christian loved ones are with Jesus. Paul reminds us that when we see Jesus, we will also see those who have gone to be with Jesus when they died. This is a rallying cry against giving up on living fruitfully and abundantly for God in the midst of grief.

"For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, at His coming, the people of Christ." --I Cor. 15:22-23

5. Grief leaves us with a feeling of uncertainty as to how quickly our loved ones begin to experience heaven. Lest anyone think that the transition from the body to heaven is not instantaneous, Paul reminds us that to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ in heaven. This is great comfort in our grief over other's death's and the fear that sometimes accompanies our own consideration of our demise as Christians.

"Therefore, though we are always confident and know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord--for we walk by faith, not by sight--yet we are confident and satisfied to be out of the body and at home with the Lord."
--2 Cor. 5:6-8

6. Grief caused by death and death itself are part of God's good plan--though we can't see all the reasons why or how. Our good God is sovereign over death and the grief it causes--an additional reason for Christian confidence.

"We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God: those who are called according to His purpose." --Romans 8:28

7. Grief for a Christian, because of the Scriptures already covered, should not be as severe as those who do not have hope of life after death, or those who reject the message of the Cross. If grief is terribly severe, this is normal, but the grieving Christian should focus powerfully on the reality of God's promises.

"We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, concerning those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve like the rest, who have no hope." --1 Thess. 4:13

Grief is tough, and it is a long process. If you know someone who is grieving, grieve with them and gently remind them of God's promises with compassion. If you are grieving, do so in your own way, without shame, but never let your feelings lead your thoughts away from the sure foundation of Holy Scripture--fill your mind with God-ward thoughts, and remember His Word.

2008-01-15T21:27:00.000-08:00

Fall Creek

(A poem about my visit with my Grandfather, Arvis Tuggle, to the location of his childhood home in Wayne County, Ky., which was covered with the waters of Lake Cumberland in 1950).

Your hand in mine, we shuffled down shaley banks,
The water lapped quietly, the sun shone down;
Bathed in memories of your past here,
Clearly I saw your youth cleft down amongst the ridgelines:
The river coursing briskly, rolling from faraway hollows,
Rolling past leafy hemp fields in Cumberland lowland,
Garden herbs and vegetables, beside a three room home.
Morning dew, on crushed grass, beneath a child’s print.
The midsummer dry dust and evening light,
Dancing together beneath the tires of an old Schwinn cycle.
Low lowing of cattle, grazing in the green bottom,
Children shouting, running into the green shallows or hollows,
Or the plop of a bobber in the ceaseless currents,
After the spring floods as the Mockingbird cried.
Meeting the Ferryman kinsman for a river ride,
To the other side, over to Oak Grove south of Nancy.
And the little church there, shaded by poplar, oak, and maple,
Gospel strains flowed from the house of God at eventide,
Echoed in the last pinks and purples of a Sunday sun,
And the fiery Word of Ancient Days,
Thundering through the night, darkness embraced by Light.
In the deepening shadows of late youth, mail on the wooden table,
Warnings of the Flood and pilgrimage forced.
The dissembling of life young, portrayed in:
A house taken down, board and nail,
A barn and henhouse removed,
Wood carried away on a flatbed Chevy,
The land laid bare and burned clear,
Memorials erased, only memories,
And the empty brown, where once life grew,
Soon to be under the Deep, hidden from view.
Your hand in mine, we stared out over the sloshing water,
It lapped quietly, the sun shone down;
Bathed in the sunlight of the day,
Clearly I saw your youth cleft, in your face’s lines.

Barak Obama's Cold Wicked Heart

2008-01-13T12:57:00.000-08:00

I recently read a "Human Events" expose by Terry Jeffries on Barrack Obama. I found a link to it at "The Pearcy Report," Nancy ("Total Truth" author) and her husband Rick Pearcy's website.

In just a few words, the essence of the article is that a certain bill protecting the lives of late-term aborted babies (those children thought to have Down's, etc.) was voted down at least two times by Barrack Obama, in the Illinois state government voting, and was held aside in a committee he chaired in the Illinois government to prevent its legislation into law.

A certain nurse testified about a baby that might have been saved in Illinois by this law:

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

Tears flowed from my eyes as I read this. Obama, however, was completely unfazed by this testimony given:

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

I do not see anyone could vote to destroy human life like this! It is an Obamination!

Similarly, I do not see how any voter could cast their lot with such a cold wicked-hearted person as Barrack Obama.

The complete article on Obama can be found here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24354

Dining and Wining

2008-01-09T19:47:00.001-08:00

It has recently been brought to my attention that the Catholics have yet another thing right (no offense intended). Some of my brothers have been discussing the drink of the day for the Baptist Lord's Supper service:

"In this corner, weighing in with centuries of use and biblical fidelity--its 20 proof wine!"

"And in this corner, the challenger from the modern post-temperance era US Bible Belt--its Wellllches Graaape Juuuuuice!"

Ah yes, I wish this debate was this fun. In actuality, it is not. This scriptural discussion is one issue keeping a person from joining my church, being that we t-total for the Lord's Supper. So we must ask the question: Was it wine in John 2 in the Bible or not? Every book I have on the subject I have says "yes, wine," save my set of commentaries by Fundamentalist preacher Oliver B. Green. So I can't disagree that it is OK for the element to consist of wine, and that the early church used it much. This is the crux of the argument of the person who won't join my church--they always used wine in the Bible....

However, a thought just occurred to me: What did Paul say to Timothy?

"No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities." I Tim. 5:23

This text throws a big question mark on the wine question:

1. Why would Timothy abstain from wine if he knew it was the prescribed drink?
2. Wait! Wasn't Timothy a pastor who should've been drinking wine in the Lord's Supper anyways?
3. Hmmmm....seems Timothy was an abstainer...and a pastor to boot...hmmmm, maybe they didn't use wine all the time after all!

I realize that my argument can be critiqued on the grounds that Timothy may have used a small amount of wine with communion and not other times, but hey, who says that was the case? Suppose he was abstaining for other reasons...maybe some of the same reasons that some Christians are wary of social drinking: wine is potentially addictive and a possible detriment to your witness in some cultures.

I consider drinking alcohol a matter of Christian liberty (without drunkeness). However, based on my above thoughts on this text, it seems Paul was not rebuking Timothy for not using wine as an element, but instead was gently explaining its medicinal qualities to ease Timothy's conscience and to allow him to drink a little wine "for his stomach's sake." This means that Timothy had probably been avoiding using wine in the Lord's Supper too. This seems to speak against the aforementioned church member's demand of wine on the grounds of biblical authority, and seems to say that in our modern era where stomach bugs from water are less common, that wine is fine, but so is the NA fruit of the vine.

Update on Ruthie

2008-01-08T21:30:00.000-08:00

My mother-in-law is doing better! I praise God because she is trusting the Lord whether she lives or dies...this is the most important thing:

"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life...nor any created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Rom. 8:38-39

Ruthie's condition is as follows:

1. Chemo and radiation have been administered to her for her cancer; MRI results are pending.
2. She has been allowed to stay in UK's cancer center where they are caring for the swelling induced by her tumor.
3. Her attitude, appearance, and pain level have dramatically improved from the last three weeks.
4. She has at least one doctor who is a prayer and is for doing all that can be done for her.
5. She has been contacted by one of the most advanced cancer centers in the US for possible treatment.
6. She will get to come home this weekend for three days!
7. People continue to pray for her healing.

I encourage all of you who read this to accept the challenge to pray the Lord for Ruthie's recovery: we are praying for a miracle--please join us. I also encourage fasting for periods during these days of prayer.

And thanks to all of you who are praying! Keep it up!

Prayer request

2008-01-05T20:34:00.000-08:00

Sorry, for those of you who have been reading my blog of late that I have not posted anything new. My mother-in-law is ill--she has cancer and it has spread to her heart. I just ask all of you who read this to pray for her.

Fantasy vs. Fantasy: "The Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter"

2007-12-31T12:36:00.000-08:00

Recently, several of people from my church chewed on an idea over dinner:

Is the JRR Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" more acceptable literature for Christian reading (particularly younger readers) than "Harry Potter"?

My pastor and SS teacher sat in opposition to one of my friends and I. They said there is no difference between LOTR and HP. We said LOTR was more edifying for the Christian reader and was a better piece of Literature over all. What do you think?

1. Is LOTR or HP better for Christian readers (young or old)?
2. Why?

J. Gresham Machen's Reasons for Not Accepting the Label "Fundamentalist"

2007-12-31T12:09:00.000-08:00

Below is J. Gresham Machen's position regarding Fundamentalist Protestantism in the late 19th and 20th centuries. In case you don't know Machen, he helped found Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbytarian Church in America, and was an ardent defender of orthodoxy.

"Do you suppose that I do regret my being called by a term that I greatly dislike, a "Fundamentalist"? Most certainly I do. But in the presence of a great common foe, I have little time to be attacking my brethren who stand with me in defense of the Word of God (see note 19)."

What he didn't like was

1) the absence of historical perspective;
2) the lack of appreciation of scholarship;
3) the substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for the historic confessions;
4) the lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine;
5) the pietistic, perfectionist tendencies (i.e., hang ups with smoking (see note 20), etc.);
6) one-sided other-worldliness (i.e., a lack of effort to transform culture); and
7) a penchant for futuristic chiliasm (or: pre-millenialism).
The full text of this short bio on Machen can be found at:

J. Gresham Machen's Response to Modernism (by John Piper)

Church and State Questions for Comment

2007-12-27T20:04:00.000-08:00

Question #1: Can we teach morals without religious texts?

Question #2: If not, which religious texts contain authoritative morals?

Question #3: If one text was chosen, to what extent should it affect the law?

Question #4: If so, what is our public morality based on?

A Testimony of Heaven

2007-12-26T20:18:00.001-08:00

My grandpa suffered a terrible car wreck when he was middle-aged. He claimed to have seen a vision of heaven at that time that he was near death. I have often wondered about that near-death vision that he claimed was too "beautiful for words."

Don Piper, pastor of First Baptist of Pasadena, Texas tells of his vision of heaven in this book from Revell Publishers.

Recently my father died, and since then I have watched numerous videos on near-death experiences. If you haven't read of these experiences, most of them involve the person's testimony of being transported through a portal toward light, feelings of intense peace and pleasure, seeing a light, seeing loved ones (or seeing hell!), and seeing a life-review.

These testimonies are very controversial. In this book, Piper explains why his experience was not like these. He claims that he saw fellow Christians (some of them family members), and that these people welcomed him into a land (or realm) of intense light and joy, led him to the gates of heaven, and that there was heavenly music composed of thousands of beautiful songs of praise to God. Piper did not stay dead, however, and he attributes this to the answered prayers of a pastor friend who prayed intensely over his dead body at the scene of the accident. He testifies God sent him back in answer to this prayer to testify to heaven.

This book is very interesting. It is my opinion that Piper is being totally honest about his experience, but there will be skeptics, though he was declared dead at the scene of the accident by several trained medical workers. Without an EKG record, some people would never believe he was dead, and others would attribute his experience to the workings of his mind as he slowly died (or at least more slowly than the workers thought).

I believe, based on the testimony of Scripture, that there is life after death. I also believe there are people (Paul and John, for instance), who saw God's dwelling place and re-emerged in the world of the living. Readers will have to judge for themselves whether Don's vision of heaven lines up with that found in Scripture. I think it does. This book will surely capture the minds of those Christians who have experienced the death of a close loved one recently. It will give many hope who struggle in interpreting the Scriptures on heaven.

Lastly, I will say that as Don's friend prayed for him as he lay dead, so I recently prayed for my dead father--but my dad didn't get up. However, as I stood by his death-bed, I also prayed "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away: Blessed be the Name of the Lord." At that moment a picture as clear as day came to my mind: Dad standing on the edge of the clouds of heaven, dressed in a white robe, smiling and waving, and standing behind him was Jesus. That vision in my head gave me so much comfort that day. As I read of Heaven in the Scripture, I rejoice, because I know that of which I read is real, and I'm going there someday--whatever may come of visions in this life.

iPod Shuffle: A cookie-sized sermon library

2007-12-26T19:38:00.000-08:00

Here is my newest toy/edifying technological device. If you don't know, it's an iPod Shuffle. I packed four sermons on this baby in about twenty minutes, all told, this evening. This amount of time even included downloading the material in a different electronic format, placing it in a new playlist, and reorganizing it, not just syncing the iPod with my computer. If the files had been on my computer, we are talking five minutes flat! And I have a seven and a half year-old computer! I have been considering this evening how fast good Bible teaching may be dispersed in this age of electronic wonders.

Just think about it...the first disciples hungrily read one, two, or maybe a few NT texts at a time. They could get access a copy of the OT sometimes, but they rarely owned one. If they heard a sermon, it was after a preacher had labored over the texts available to tell the Good News from the available materials, and that was a one-time event the might be similarly repeated from notes or memory, but they had no where near the access to a human voice accurately teaching the Scriptures that we do. I suppose that this is another symptom of the Information Age. Perhaps this has implications for the End Times as well, after all, Jesus says "this Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world." (Matt. 24:12). It is amazing how fast the Gospel may be dispersed by new electronic devices.

Yet, I must stop right there. I know what you're thinking: "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you." (Matt. 28:18-20). I can also hear some of you thinking: "But be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." (James 1:22). To these thoughts, I say, "Amen, Amen."

Whatever we as Christians have been given, we have been given, not for entertainment/diversion, but for the conversion of mankind through dispersing the message. Can you imagine God asking us at the last judgment: "What about that iPod? What did you use it for?"

Some of us answer: "Uhhh, well, I listened to music on it."
God says: "What about my Word? Did you listen to my Word on it? The Bible? Or a preacher?"
Some answer: "No God. We did not."
Some answer: "We had sermons on our iPods."
God says: "To the first, you have dishonored me by ignoring the best use of this gift. To the second, you have aggravated your first offense by not obeying what you listened to."

What a solemn thought. The iPod may not be a sign of the closing of the End of the Age, but either way, in owning one...our responsibility as Christians is increased.

2007-12-25T18:57:00.001-08:00

Under Sun long ago, we sinned,
The ground was overspread with thorns,
For our crime.

A cloud of doubt darkened the sky;
The presence of God: fear.
For our crime.

And Suns many afterward,
Our Hero bore these thorns,
For our crime.

A cloud of judgment darkened the sky;
The presence of God: fear.
For our crime.

And in the Sun three days past this;

He rose up pierced of thorns but whole,
For our life sublime.

Saved!? part 2

2007-12-23T20:15:00.000-08:00

Back in June, I made a post on a witnessing opportunity in which my pastor got to lead a young lady to Christ. I put in that post that we didn't know at the time if she would stay in the church. Praise God, she is still coming! Of course, we would like to see her grow more, and become more involved, but she and her boyfriend talked with my Pastor today about some important spiritual issues.

I am excited that God is working. I still believe exactly what I wrote about witnessing in June, but I have had my joy renewed by seeing her continue to show evidence of being a Christian. This is what we truly ought to hope and work for in our churches--doing the right things continually, based on our conviction that the Truth is powerful and works in God's timing to bear fruit. Of course, this is not as gratifying as assuming people are always converted immediately during our verbal witness, but hey, who said God should stroke our egos? Wasn't our job faithfulness to His commands and worship anyway?

Soli Deo Gloria

Final Comments on "Jesus and Yahweh"

2007-12-23T19:17:00.000-08:00

I finished reading "Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine." This book is a powerful illustration of the blindness of unbelief. I recently threw it in the trash because its greatest benefit is that it lets its reader into the religious mind of Bloom. Being that his mind is a confused, error-filled one, the trash was the best place for this book. Some final thoughts on this book:

1. Like most English professors, Bloom relies on assumption to define his view of the Bible. What do I mean by assumption? His assumption is that the biblical text of the OT was constructed according to the JPED theory. The biggest problem with this theory is the it assumes that the content of the OT was written by competing groups of Jews intent on emphasizing different aspects of their religion. The argument goes that the Priestly class (the P source) was interested in preserving their power through sacrifice, and that the J (Yawist) and E writers (Elohist) were also trying to maintain their power through their emphases as well. The D (Deuteronomist) writer attempted to pull these three competing strains of literature together during and after the Babylonian exile, resulting in the OT as we know it, a device they reasoned would pull all Jews together under the one "story." The reason this argument is a problem is because it remains unproven, though some of its historical/archeological observation might be true. Bloom is not critical of this argument at all. He is willing to base his world-view on faith in the observations of man (and these are not likely or clear-cut observations in the least!)

2. Bloom denies the authority of John and Paul to talk about the identity of Jesus. He completely ignores them. His reason is that these writers were not preserving Jesus' opinions of Himself--but their own, and that their theological statements do not match with the Synoptic testimonies--particularly Mark (whom Bloom accounts the earliest writer). Bloom's argument is that Mark is not presenting Jesus as God. Of course, Bloom relies on doctored liberal views of the validity of the various parts of Mark's testimony. In fact, Bloom completely misses Mark 6:50, in which Jesus says while walking on the water "It is I" (literally "I am"!). This lack of critical examination of Mark's text marks Bloom as a false teacher--one who twists and distorts the Bible. In fact, Bloom's love for Shakespeare's "Hamlet" serves as a more of a basis for his character analysis of Jesus. Similarly, Bloom takes liberties with God's OT name, quoting it as "I will be were I will be." This is convenient for a man who feels the Jews have been abandoned by God (based on events like the Holocaust). The horrible fact is that the Jews are indeed "cut off" for the present time. Of course, Satan has used events like the Holocaust to attempt to destroy them, but God has preserved their race because of the remnant Paul speaks of in Romans 9-11.

3. Bloom's last chapters will be an exercise in frustration for many Christian readers. These chapters are all about Bloom's chosen religion--Jewish gnostic mysticism.

4. "Jesus and Yahweh" serves as Bloom's testimony of and justification for his own unbelief in the end. He tries to be courteous to his reader at times, but his effort is an old man saying "this is how it is." It is dogmatic to the core.

"Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine" is Harold Bloom trying to play God by rewriting the truth to fit his own needs. Perhaps that is why his name is nearly as prominent on the book's cover as those of the deities he intends to address within its pages.

Jesus, Yahweh, and Harold Bloom: Three Gods in the Mind of the Latter

2007-06-08T12:52:00.000-07:00

I have recently received and dug into "Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine" by literary critic Harold Bloom. I read Bloom's interviews on this book before purchasing it. I have found what I expected to, which I will list in the following comments:

1. Bloom's assumptions are purely secular. His treatment of the Bible, and assumptions about its text are all founded on secular constructs based on assumptions that are unproven. He is a thorough adherent of the JPED theory of OT construction.
2. Bloom clearly argues as a Jew protecting his Hassidic-Jewish heritage. He mentions anti-semitism among Christians often, and affirms his Jewishness constantly. The book says (my paraphrase) that "Christians are guilty of misreading the OT," but Bloom supplies his own reading based on very little if any evidence.
Bloom's "evidence" for denying the Trinity is taken from various liberal Catholic and Jewish scholars that hold to the JPED construct. If Bloom's reader is not conversant with all the scholarly literature on church history, theology, and source criticism that Bloom is, the reader receives only Bloom's opinion that the Bible cannot be true (because he draws his conclusions immediately with no argument at all).
3. Bloom is a poor exegete of Scripture because he does not take it as a whole and denies its historical unity. He nullifies parts of the NT and OT without any reason besides "they are polemical in nature" and denies the validity of intra-Scriptural statements which affirm the inter-connectedness of the Bible Story.
4. Bloom's book seems to have received small popularity (except among literary circles) and he has not submitted a work into the mainstream of Christian debate whence it could be evaluated by all parties involved, both liberal and conservative. This book is pure secular dogma so far.

More later.

Greg

Saved!?

2007-06-04T19:38:00.000-07:00

Christians...

Are you witnessing? Have you gotten into a state of discontent? I had, but lately I have felt that I must share the good news no matter what.

Earlier today:

Pastor and I went witnessing. Visited a young lady who had attended our church services. Pastor shared the Gospel thoroughly. She became convicted that she had sinned against God and prayed to the Lord to save her! We rejoiced!

Later:

Pastor and I both admitted that we cannot know for certain if this young lady will remain faithful--that's the rub...its difficult to evangelize when we know that many will not follow through on commitments made in a moment. Yet, when we are witnessing we cannot get enough.

Conclusion: The Parable of the Soils (Matt. 13) and The Great Commission (Matt. 28) are both true! Keep on witnessing.