<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Monday, February 28, 2011

Cool Video of the Day

The last shuttle launch as seen from a passenger jet.

Labels:

Shave Like A Man

My brother gave me an unusual gift this past Christmas: A shaving kit; complete with pre-shave oil, lather, a badger hair shaving brush, after-shave balm, and a heavy stainless steel Merkur safety razor with blades.

I say it was an unusual gift because it is the kind of gift your great aunt who lives in Cincinnati would give you for your high school graduation. In fact, now that I think about it, one of my aunts in Kansas City may have given me a similar shaving kit for a birthday or some other culturally designated gift giving period of the year.

When the raging hormones of puberty began surging through my body, on top of experiencing the occasional Peter Brady voice changing moments, my cherubic, baby-face began growing tufts of whiskers. I know our principal/health teacher at the Salem R-80 middle school would like to think those "films" he showed to all us six grade boys during that "special" recess prepared us for embracing our mutating, 13-year old bodies, but regrettably, they did not. They gave us lots of theoretical information for sure, but we were left on our own when it came to the practical application, like shaving.

My dad did his best to teach me how to shave, but he used a Gillette safety razor. Safety razors frightened me. I thought if I tried to use one, I would peel the skin off my face like a potato. Thankfully, my parents gave me an electric razor for Christmas early on in my new shaving journey and I used it for a few years. But as my whiskers got thicker, the electric razor felt as though it wasn't working like it should and shaving was kinda hurting.

By that time, I was a tad more confident with the thought of using the razor blade variety of shaver, yet, instead of a single bladed safety razor (which still scared me a bit) I went to the disposable, multi-bladed, pivotal cartridges and I pretty much stuck with that technique for the last 25 years with little variation in my routine.

I also have considered shaving to be one of those personal things with a man that you really don't meddle with. It's like a his wallet. You don't just go out and buy one for another guy as a "gift."

So when I opened this box my brother had sent me and there was a shaving kit from The Art of Shaving Store, I was perplexed as to what he was thinking. He had told me on the phone before Christmas he thought he would get me something out of the ordinary, so I was certainly thinking unordinary.

When we talked later after I got the gift, he said that his new way of shaving had changed and revolutionized his life so he wanted to share it with me. Like it was a religious conversion or something and he had become an evangelist.

I was reluctant to give it a try, but my brother sent along a set of videos that made shaving the old fashioned way with a safety razor extremely appealing.

The Shave Tutor

I watched the series of videos and was hooked to give it a try, and I have to confess that when one applies the techniques this fellow presents in his videos it has made shaving to be fun. Shaving has actually become a routine that I look forward to doing rather than just another personal grooming chore I have to do to look presentable.

There is time involved, certainly. Pre-shave oiling your face and whipping up lather in a cup adds an extra 3 minutes of time to the shaving ritual; however, using that soft, supple badger hair brush to paint your face in shaving cream can be euphoric. It's not speed shaving in the shower by any means, but the work provides an overall more satisfying experience for an otherwise mundane daily habit. Plus, my shave is much more close and lasts longer than what those multi-bladed disposable razors gave me.

For all the guys who read this, check out the videos and consider investing in one of these shaving kits. Here's a website to get started: Classic Shaving.

Maybe suggest to the wife or other family to get you one for Christmas this year or a birthday. You'll be pleasantly surprised with how much you may like it. I know I was.

Labels: , ,

Friday, February 25, 2011

Things to Read This Weekend

I am thinking through my third installment on the subject of presuppositionalism, so in the meantime, I thought I would point out some interesting articles I have encountered over the last couple of weeks.

On the creation front,

For Valentine's Day weekend, Answers in Genesis put together a "date night" at their Creation Museum only to have it crashed by a couple of clowns posing as a gay "couple." The security were already prepared for them, because one of the agitators blogged about it extensively weeks before the "date night" event. Take a lesson here atheist trolls who want to pull some ambush stunt.

Crashing Date Night

And along the lines of biblical creationism, Terry Mortenson outlines the basics of young earth creationism,

A Summary of Young Earth Creationism

Moving to the subject of archaeology, TMS graduate, Doug Petrovich, has done an extensive study on the destruction of Hazor in Joshua 11 and how it relates to the dating of the Exodus. I may have linked this article on a previous occasion along with his other engaging work on Amenhotep II being the Exodus pharaoh. I note it again just because the Associates for Biblical Research posted it on their website,

The Dating of Hazor's Destruction in Joshua 11


Dr. Michael Vlach, who teaches at the Master's Seminary, recently started a blog. I am looking forward to how it will go for him. He already has three articles up discussing how the NT uses the OT.

Then, I came across an old article providing a bit of historical background to Reconstructionism. The author highlights all the titanic personalities and the agonizing struggle between the various factions of theonomists. It's an epic read.

An Historical Overview of Christian Reconstructionism


I also have updated my series in Genesis one with a few more messages.

The Creation Week of Genesis

Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Toilet Humor

Video speaks for itself.

Labels: ,

Monday, February 21, 2011

You May Be an Arminian If ....

The Society of Evangelical Arminians have posted a brief survey to help determine if whether or not a person is an Arminian.

Are You an Arminian and Not Even Know It?

The main questions are,
  • 1. Do you believe that Jesus died for every human being?

  • 2. Do you believe that humans are so depraved that they can do nothing to earn salvation and that they cannot choose to believe in Jesus without the intervention of God’s grace?

  • 3. Do you believe that a person can resist the convicting power of God’s grace?

  • 4. Do you believe that you are born again when you put your faith in Jesus?

  • 5. Do you believe in election?

  • 6. Do you believe in predestination?

  • 7. Do you believe in eternal security?

  • 8. Do you believe in the penal satisfaction view of the atonement?

  • 9. Do you believe that God exhaustively knows the future?

  • 10. Do you believe in the sovereignty of God?

I respond with NO on questions 1, 3, and 4, all three significant doctrinal distinctions between Calvinism and Arminianism, so I am fairly confident that doesn't make me an Arminian. There were some odd explanations for few of the questions. For example, according to the test giver, he seems to suggest that open theism falls (#9) within the realm of historic, Reformed Arminianism, even though I would think even Jacob Arminius would reject such a notion.

Additionally, I see a bit of inconsistency between how this test defines election and predestination. Exegetically, I understand the two doctrines as working in tandem. God elects in His decrees and then predestination is the out working of those decrees in the establishment of time. Charles Spurgeon illustrated this concept the best when he preached his sermon "Things that Accompany Salvation"

Election went through the world and marked the houses to which Salvation should come and the hearts in which the treasure should be deposited. Election looked through all the race of man, from Adam down to the last, and marked with sacred stamp those for whom Salvation was designed. "He must needs go through Samaria," said Election; and Salvation must go there. Then came Predestination. Predestination did not merely mark the house, but it mapped the road in which Salvation should travel to that house, Predestination ordained every step of the great army of Salvation, it ordained the time when the sinner should be brought to Christ, the manner how he should be saved, the means that should be employed; it marked the exact hour and moment, when God the Spirit should quicken the dead in sin, and when peace and pardon should be spoken through the blood of Jesus. Predestination marked the way so completely, that Salvation doth never overstep the bounds, and it is never at a loss for the road.


The quiz provides a little bit explanation as to why your answer will make you an Arminian. Go see how you do.

Labels: , ,

Friday, February 18, 2011

Applying Presuppositionalism: Exegetical and Theological

Readers may wish to review my introductory article on this subject before proceeding.

Building upon that previous article on presuppositionalism, I want to turn my attention to providing what I think is a theological outline of what I have personally developed by learning from presuppositional apologetic methodology. Like I noted before, I think a person's apologetic methodology is useless unless it can be applied practically with engaging the everyday person in an evangelistic encounter.

Furthermore, I will add here, apologetic methodology should not be so complicated that only academics or theology geeks are the only ones familiar with it. Apologetic methodology must have a practicality to it so that Ricco the shop mechanic, Tina the Wal-Mart associate, and Mary the housewife can learn quickly and utilize it in an effective manner.

Now, I am not saying we Christians should never take the time to sharpen our "debating" skills or that we should shun learning about apologetics in general. As Tina the Wal-Mart associate grows in her faith, certainly she should be discipled to strengthen her ability to present the Gospel. But apologetic proofs in and of themselves shouldn't be the focus of such a presentation. They are not the power of God unto salvation as Paul writes in Romans 1:16.

Presuppositionalism, I believe, presents a better starting point for our apologetic approach. But as I noted in my previous article, presuppositionalism can also be weighed down with complicated philosophical baggage in the form of its concepts. Even the lingo can be flummoxing for the student. So, cutting straight to the chase, let me boil down what I have learned from presuppositionalism and present it in a brief outline.

1) First we need to develop our theology from the exegesis of biblical truth. As we develop our theology from Scripture, we can then shape our apologetic presentation.

2) All human beings are governed by "presuppositions," or unquestioned, fundamental, philosophical axioms an individual will take for granted. This first point is absolutely crucial for a Christian to understand before he or she prepares to confront unbelievers with the Gospel. Grasping this simple, philosophical truth will help cut through much of the difficulty Christians struggle with to evangelize the lost. The Bible declares that our battle with unbelief is with the mind as men submit their thinking to various philosophies and worldviews (2 Corinthians 10:1-5). Dan Phillips goes into a bit more detail regarding presuppositions in the introduction of this article. In short,

  • Those "presuppositions" serve as basic starting points in a person's thinking.

  • A person filters his reasoning through those presuppositions when he or she intersects with the world: society, work, school, family, friends, and other areas of life.

  • A person utilizes those "presuppositions" when considering the big questions in life. Such things as, "where did I come from?" "Why am I here?" "Where am I going?"

  • Those "presuppositions" give direction to the person's worldview.

  • All of this means that all people every where are not "neutral" with their thinking. They serve some sort of "master," as it were. Everyone interprets their world in which they live according to "presuppositions."

3) The Bible tells us all men every where are created in God's image (Genesis 1:26, 27). This means:

  • Man was created to be a spiritual being. He is both physical and spiritual.

  • Man was created to worship His creator and to be in fellowship with God.

  • All men have knowledge of our creator in their hearts and minds.

4) Adam's sin (Genesis 3) separated mankind without exception from fellowship with God.

5) Adam's sin not only separated mankind from God, it placed all mankind without exception under the righteous judgment of God's wrath.

6) Hence, all men are born "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1ff).

  • Spiritually "dead" in that men are born separated from fellowship with God

  • Man's spiritual death will result in his physical death (Romans 5:12, 6:23, I Corinthians 15:56).

7) Man's spiritual "deadness" manifests itself in a number of ways, but most specifically in rebellion against God and His laws. In fact, man's sinfulness can best be described as resulting from a hatred of God. The theological term is total depravity. Sin has corrupted the whole person.

8) Total depravity does not mean all men are absolutely the worse sinners they could be. It means sin has totally permeated man's entire being. Man's nature is under the dominion and the defiling influence of sin (Mark 7:21, 22) so that:
  • Men have no desire BUT to act sinfully.

  • They are enslaved to sin, unable and unwilling to pursue godly righteousness (Romans 6:20).

  • A person could either live in gross immorality or be a moral philanthropist. With either lifestyle, the person is still a sinner.

  • The person is identified with the old man Adam and his disobedience (Romans 5:12)

9) Yet, in spite of man's sinfulness and separation from God, he still retains the image of God as noted under [#3]. Sin essentially mars God's image in man, it does not eradicate it.
  • The image of God gives men an internal knowledge of their creator (Romans 1:19-20). There are no true "atheists" or unbelievers. They may say they don't believe in God, but their lives betray their hypocrisy.

  • That knowledge stirs in men a willingness to seek to be "reasonable" and "rational."

  • They intrinsically understand and do God's laws. Men act morally (Romans 2:14-16) even though they refuse to acknowledge God is the justification for their morality.

  • Men seek to worship. False religions reflect man's heart to worship a "god." The rankest atheist skeptic assigns absolute worth to something outside himself even if that something is in the form of philosophical principles or scientific paradigms.

10) That marring of God's image in man causes man's reason to be fallen. This is something of a conundrum, for men do act rational as noted under [#9], yet the Scriptures declare their minds are darkened and their hearts blinded (Ephesians 4:17-19).
  • Man's darkened reason doesn't necessarily impact his intelligence. Some of the worse sinners and haters of God have been brilliant.

  • Man's darkened reason has more to do with their ethical morals. It is a spiritual problem.

  • In other words, man's darkened reason drives him to pursue sinful behavior that could possibly bring a person to ruin and despair.

  • This folly is demonstrated in the decisions a person makes individually or as a collective whole, as well as the beliefs he mentally ascents to that form his philosophical outlook on life. Those beliefs govern his overall presuppositions that in turn drive how men intersect their world.
11) Man's sinful condition is spiritual, not one lacking education or intelligence.

12) Because man's sinful condition is spiritual, it ultimately has to do with His relationship with God.
  • Men pursue sin, as noted under [#4] because they are separated from God.

  • It is a separation men cannot fix on their own.

13) Considering all that the Bible says about mankind, humanity is in desperate need of a deliverer, one who not only restores fellowship with their Creator, but also spiritually reconnects them to their Creator.
  • A deliverer who can turn away the wrath of a holy God against sinners and restore the fellowship man once had with God.

  • A deliverer who can reorient the image of God in man away from earthly things back to God Himself.

  • A deliverer who can change the nature of sinful men so that they desire to seek God's righteousness.

  • A deliverer who will free man's reason from the shackles of sin so he can now be truly wise (Proverbs 1:7).

These are the foundational points I have learned from presuppositional apologetics. If we establish in our minds a robust biblical theology of sin, man, God, and salvation, we will lay a firm foundation to build an effective apologetic methodology. Our apologetic will be useful and practical, not merely philosophical and theoretical.

In my third post, I'll take up outlining a practical map with applying my apologetics.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Chuck Smith Loses Mind

I would imagine many of my daily readers are aware of the utterly shameful comments Calvary Chapel founder, Chuck Smith, gave to a young gal who called his radio program a week or so ago. She explained how she was pregnant with Siamese twins: two-heads sharing the same body. (Yes, I know, conjoined twins is the P.C. term). Worldly doctors, of course, always give the worse case scenario and in this instance, they tell the woman she will die and the baby will die. Hence, the only option is to save yourself all the heartache, tears, suffering, and trial, and kill it (them).

Chuck Smith, mustering all the wisdom one can in the final 2 minutes of a call-in radio program, counsels her to get the abortion. God will be gracious, he says to her.

I read the report, but the impact is more forceful to hear the actual audio.

I may have more to add to this post later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, read Dustin Segers post about the whole thing:

Chuck Smith Needs to Repent

Labels:

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Kaiser on Egypt

Saw this linked over at Dan's place this morning. It supplements my comments I made on the events in Egypt that I posted a couple of weeks ago. I do have to say this is the first time I can recall Walter Kaiser being connected to a type of "cable news exegesis" with reading prophecy. I mean, this is the sort of thing I hear from Chuck Missler, but Walt Kaiser? Gary DeMar's head probably exploded.

Thoughts on Egypt and Isaiah 19

Labels: ,

Friday, February 11, 2011

Clearing the Presuppositional Malaise

Back in 2006-2007, I posted a series of 9 articles addressing what I believe are the basics of apologetic methodology. My primary goal with writing those articles was to first remove Christian apologetics from merely being philosophical considerations to grounding our methodology in Scripture, and secondly, applying apologetics to the practice of evangelism. I believe these two goals are important for believers to grasp because the typical thinking among Evangelicals is to separate apologetics from having a biblical foundation and then dividing our approach from evangelism as if it is a semi-related discipline to apologetics. In my mind, apologetic methodology is pointless if it is not built upon the biblical text and doesn't meaningfully engage sinners as to their need for Gospel salvation.

Regrettably, much of what is labeled "Evangelical apologetics" these days fails in regards to those two points. The methodologies are neither grounded in the Word of God, nor do they purposefully engage the sinner as to his need for Christ. Further more, it has been my observation that ministries instructing Christians in the field of apologetics intentionally ignore these two vital points. In fact, a number of popular apologetic teachers will go so far as to tell their audiences that the Bible should be the last thing a Christian brings to the discussion with an unbeliever. Other teachers make apologetics dependent upon a Christian having to be familiar with complicated philosophical jargon or so-called empirical "proofs" for the existence of God and the Person of Jesus Christ.

Now: I consider myself to be a presuppositionalist. I believe presuppositionalism is a more biblically robust apologetic approach that what most Christians are familiar with. I would also like to think my presuppositionalism is immune from being entangled with philosophical snares, but it is not.

Presuppositionalism was the apologetic methodology developed by Dutch Reformed Calvinists in the 1800s and made known in the U.S. during the 20th century primarily by theologian, Cornelius Van Til, and a number of his students like Greg Bahnsen and John Frame. The methodology focuses upon defending the entirety of Christianity as a worldview and engaging unbelievers at the foundational level of their worldview.

Without getting into the specifics of all that pertains to presuppositionalism, the focus upon worldviews is what makes the methodology superior in contrast to the other popular views of apologetics. Rather than compartmentalizing individual arguments and calling the unbeliever to reason with the Christian as to validity of each one as "proofs" for the Christian faith, presuppositionalism begins by "presupposing" the truth of Christianity and calls the sinner to repent of the erroneous "presuppositions" that shape his worldview.

However, even though I believe presuppositionalism to be the better approach to defending the Christian faith, there is a big tendency for presuppositional practitioners to become just as weighed down with philosophical baggage as their non-presuppositional counterparts. This is seen when they attempt to press their opponents to provide a justifiable reason, according to their chosen belief system, for such things like moral absolutes, the universal laws of logic, and other similar "truth claims." Conversations about logic and absolutes require some understanding of philosophy and the intellectual ability to challenge unbelievers with that knowledge. Additionally, the whole evangelistic encounter can quickly become a quagmire of unnecessary, impromptu debate the Christian has to slosh through with the unbeliever.

Having stated that, let me make myself clear so that I am not misunderstood. I certainly believe there can be a place for presenting philosophical arguments when we share our faith with non-Christians if the opportunity so arises. Moreover, I appreciate how presuppositionalism places unbelievers on the defensive, moving the evangelistic encounter from haggling over how to interpret evidence to actually challenging them to defend their core "truth" claims about reality, life, and how people are to live. Presuppositionalism is especially useful in this area when talking with atheists. And let me hasten to add that I have personally learned much from hearing presuppositionalists, like Greg Bahnsen for example, engage unbelievers in discussions and debate. Listening to these interactions has helped me to sharpen my own skills as an apologist and evangelists.

What I am saying, however, is that our focus should not stay centered exclusively upon philosophical matters, and because of the emphasis upon philosophy, presuppositionalists have the habit of making presuppositionalism more difficult than it needs to be. I can recall, many years now, reading Richard Pratt's short book, Every Thought Captive, a book advertised as a high school level introduction to presuppositional apologetics. In spite of its claim as being for high school students, it took me a couple of times reading through it to get the basics of what he was presenting. Maybe it's just me, but why should apologetic methodology be so hard? The average church goer in the pew is clueless about laws of logic and the transcendental argument for the existence of God. Granted, over time they can be taught about those things, but starting out in our evangelism by placing our emphasis on these areas is not only discouraging for the average church goer, it also shifts our presentation away from the pages of Scripture.

As I have interacted with my presuppositional brethren, read their books and listened to their lectures, I have become more and more convinced that a good many of them have overlooked this fundamental disconnect between methodology and actual, "street level" presentation. This was illustrated to me in a recent podcast by Jamin Hubner, a self-described presuppositionalist, in which he offered an uninformed, misguided critique of a message on apologetics given by Curt Daniel. Dr. Daniel's message basically explored what I have been trying to outline here in my post: The typical Christian apologetic does an inadequate job of defending the Faith and that includes a bit of what defines itself as presuppositionalism. Instead, Dr. Daniel argues, our apologetic methodology needs to flow out of the biblical text and actually be meaningfully evangelistic. This important point seemed to had been lost on Jamin, however, because he spent the 30 minutes of his podcast review complaining that Dr. Daniel doesn't understand presuppositionalism, and thus missed the entire heart of his message.

I believe we can do better than dismissing helpful, constructive criticisms out of hand. I have been guilty of what Dr. Daniel warns against in my apologetic practice. If we are serious about what Peter writes in his first epistle to set apart Christ as Lord, part of that sanctifying process must be molding our methodology and practice in apologetics. Hammering out bumps and smoothing edges. I want my methodology and practice to fit together in a way that honors the Lord.

Allowing this brief article to serve as an introduction, I want to provide an outline explaining what I have learned from presuppositionalism and show how I have personally made the methodology practical in my own Christian walk. That is what I hope to take up next.

Labels:

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

MacArthur in Charleston

My pastor has had many unique opportunities during his 40 years of ministry. The last couple of days has been one of those opportunities. John spoke at St. John's Episcopal Chapel in Charleston, South Carolina, at an African-American pastor's conference on the 150th anniversary of the Civil War on the topic of being a slave to Christ. How's that for unique?

Here's an on-line report from all places, a Utah paper. (It may be a general [AP] report).

Don Green, who is our managing director at Grace to You, provided some correspondence coverage via his Facebook page. Here are a few samplings:

From the beginning of the conference Tuesday evening:

- An enthusiastic audience welcomes John MacArthur to Charleston with an extended standing ovation. Black gospel music has people in a mood to worship and hear the Word of God.

- To be a slave is to be owned. Slavery had such a stigma that translators avoided the word. Servants do functions. Slaves are owned, disciplined, and rewarded. Slave is dominant word to describe a Christian in Bible.

- Black pastor tells me after tonight's session: "You have no idea what this means to our Christian community. Tonight is unprecedented. To have a white pastor of John's stature speak in a black church . . . nothing like this has ever happened. This will break down walls. You just have no idea."

And then this one from today's various ceremonies with the city council of Charleston:

- "Biblical understanding of slave redeems the term. You don't have to live with past baggage of slavery, my black friends. Being a slave of *Christ* changes everything for you."

Labels:

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Rescue at Sea

I have some longer posts in the pipeline, so bear with me putting up another video.

Thankfully, this one is pretty cool. A WW2 submarine rescue off the coast of Japan of a downed B-29. The tail gunner tells his story and gets to see the color footage taken by one of the men on the boat. It had been forgotten for over 60 years until late last year.

Labels: ,

Monday, February 07, 2011

Frazil Ice

I always tell new seminary families that while they are in California, they need to do two things: Visit Hearst's Castle and take a trip to Yosemite National Park. Both are about a four hour drive from LA. Of the two, if they can only do one, I tell them to visit Yosemite. Visiting that park is spectacular, especially the first time you lay eyes on the sheer granite cliff of El Capitan. I go into more detail on our visit HERE.

One of the more unique phenomenons of Yosemite park is the fazil ice flowing in the main creek. The waterfalls are cool enough to behold, but I would love to see the frazil ice flow.


Labels:

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Thoughts on the Events in Egypt

Friends of mine have been asking me if I had any comments regarding the events happening in Egypt over the last week or so, particularly how, if at all, this recent turmoil fits into biblical prophecy.

I can recall having one of my college professors ask me a similar question the week the first Gulf war began in 1991. He knew I was a church going kid; but honestly, I was a fairly new believer who really was clueless about many things spiritual, let alone prophetic events. Yet he saw in my young, cherubic face something that gave him the impression I had some deep, spiritual insight with the sign of the times. Too bad I couldn't stir any confidence. I just shrugged and said, "I don't know."

Hopefully I have gained a bit more spiritual wisdom over the last twenty years so I can provide a sober-minded, biblically based opinion.

- I would classify myself a strong futurist when it comes to interpreting the book of Revelation. That means I believe a good many of the events recorded in the book of Revelation have yet to come to pass. Additionally, I am premillennial in my eschatological outlook.

- Even though I adhere to a futurist, premillennial perspective, I shun sensationalistic attempts to read prophetic fulfillment through the lens of current events. I guess what preterist popularizers like Gary DeMar and Hank Hanegraaff mockingly refer to as "newspaper exegesis," though a more precise description should be "cable news exegesis."

- Let's keep things in perspective: It's Egypt. A once mighty nation that has been turned into a third world society by political corruption and Islam. The Middle East has perpetually been filled with strife since Muslim forces raided North Africa and the Holy Land in the 7th century. Tumultuous events like the protests in Egypt have periodically happened in this part of the world over the last 40 years, and it can be guaranteed they will happen again.

- Having said all of that, I don't believe Christians should just wave off the situation in Egypt. There are serious international ramifications that could have far reaching impact in the world even reaching us here in the U.S. However, as Christians we are not to wring our hands with worry.

First, let us be reminded how we serve the sovereign God of heaven and earth. Daniel, recording the words of Nebuchadnezzar, states: For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, "What have You done?" (Dan 4:34-35) And Psalm 2:2-4 says, The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us." He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. God's dominion over human governments did not end in the first century. It is He who, even to this day, sets up kings, appoints presidents, throws down kings, and removes presidents.

Secondly, though there could be prophetic events being set into motion with the protests inside Egypt, the last thing we should do is wildly speculate as to what will happen and what God is doing. It was just twenty-five years ago when I heard "Bible" teachers argue that Gorbachev was the Anti-Christ because he had an odd looking birthmark on his forehead and we all know how that turned out. As finite humanity, we are limited as to the reason God does what He does among the nations, but we can be confident that 1) He is in control, and 2) whatever the reason, it serves His greater purposes to glorify His Name and establish His Kingdom forever.

Update: See Dan's additional comments.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

God Bless America

The local, young progressives hate these sorts of things.

Labels: