Hip and Thigh

Voddie at Shepherd's Conference

2012-01-31T08:00:00.000-08:00

Austin Duncan, the college pastor at GCC - who, btw, reminds me of a bald-headed, Christian version of Penn Jillette - explains why Voddie Baucham was invited to be a keynote speaker at this year's Shepherd's Conference.

Voddie Baucham and Shepherd's Conference

Exploding Stuff in Microwaves

2012-01-31T06:50:00.000-08:00

In super slow motion.
How awesome is that!?

The Other Elephant in the Room

2012-01-28T19:00:00.000-08:00

Gleanings in 1 Samuel [5]

2012-01-26T05:40:00.000-08:00

From a Boy to a Prophet (1 Samuel 3)

I have been working through 1 Samuel on a devotional level.

First Samuel is a book that bridges the time of Israel's judges and the reign of the theocratic monarchs.

In chapter 2, we were introduced to Eli. He was both a judge and a high priest. His "ministry" was marked by ineptitude and spiritual lethargy. Most damning was that Israel was led astray and brought to sin against God by his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas. Eli refused to confront them and remove them from their roles, because he more than likely was benefiting from their sinful mishandling of the sacrifices.

Contrasted to Samuel, the Scripture says in 2:26 that he grew in stature and favor with the LORD and men.

Coming to chapter 3, the author establishes Samuel's uniqueness as Israel's national prophet.

The writer of Samuel book-ends this section with a play on two Hebrew words:
In 3:1, Samuel is described as a na'ar, or "boy."
In 3:20, he is described as a na' bi, or "prophet."

He moves from being a juvenile, waiting on the high priest at the tabernacle, to becoming an impeccable and revered spokesman for God.

The LORD establishes Samuel's prophethood by revealing to him firsthand and allowing him to be the messenger of judgment upon Eli and his family.

Four main sections I wish to consider.

I. The Prophecy Withheld (3:1-3)

Chapter three opens with Samuel shown as a youthful Levite who is providing service to the Lord under Eli's tutelage.

The opening verse says that the "Word of the LORD was rare in those days." In other words, God was not communicating with His people. There was no revelation. The idea, as some translations relate, is that God's Word was "precious."

Eli had grown old and could barely see physically. He had poor eye-sight, but his bad eye-sight pictures his spiritual eye-sight. He was not seeing God at all.

Contrasted to Eli, Samuel is said to be sleeping before the Ark of the LORD where the lamp of God burned. It was perhaps his duty to keep watch on the tabernacle furniture and not let the lamp burn out, but it was Samuel who was closest to the presence of the LORD.

II. The Prophecy Given (3:4-14)

We then read a humorous scene where the LORD calls Samuel, but the inexperienced lad believes it is Eli calling him. Verse 7 says he did not yet know the LORD. I don't think that speaks to his salvation as much as it speaks to the fact he had yet become God's anointed prophet to Israel.

The LORD calls Samuel three times, and after each time he hurries to Eli who tells him he had not called him. After the third time, Eli recognized that it was the LORD calling Samuel and tells him to respond to the LORD the next time.

On the fourth time, Samuel does just that. The text says the LORD came and stood when he called Samuel. This can mean either the presence of the LORD on the ark or perhaps it was a Christophany. Whatever the case, the LORD then reveals His judgment against Eli.

- Confirms the judgment He passed against Eli in chapter 2 by the words of a "man of God."
- His sons were to be judged for their sin and Eli for his sin in not restraining them.
- Nothing Eli does can change God's verdict and it will effect Eli's house forever.

These words precursor the major events in chapters 4 and 5.

III. The Prophecy Proclaimed (3:15-18)

The next morning, Samuel opened the doors to the house of the Lord. Quite possibly emphasized by the writer to show how God is now once again communicating with His people.

Reluctantly, Samuel tells Eli what the LORD revealed, and Eli, to his credit, accepted the pronouncement of the LORD.

IV. The Prophet Established (3:19-4:1)

Samuel then becomes God's official mouthpiece to Israel. Four things are important to note and mark his office:

- Samuel had a special relationship with God.
- Everything he said for God came to pass, "let none of his words fall to the ground."
- Everyone in Israel knew of Samuel being a prophet, "from Dan to Beersheba."
- God once again communicated to Israel through Samuel.

Defending Premillennialism [9]

2012-01-24T05:40:00.000-08:00

The Everlasting Promise of the Land

I wish to continue in my study of premillennialism I had reintroduced before the holidays. The focus of my study is the land promises God made to Israel throughout the OT and their significance as they pertain to the future hope of Israel in the eschatological future.

As I noted in my introductory post, many of my covenant Reformed brethren believe those promises have been fulfilled when Israel entered Canaan under Joshua. The greater “fulfillment” of those promises are not to be understood as Israel being restored to a “literal” geographic territory. Rather, they have been fulfilled in the work of Christ by uniting in one body, the Church, all the “elect” remnant of Jews who come to faith in their Messiah, with the “elect” gentiles who also come to faith in Christ. The Christian Church is now the “New Israel.” Thus, the greater fulfillment of those land promises given to Israel in the OT, extends beyond the meager, physical territory of the “land of Israel” to now the entire world, so that the “meek,” God’s New Covenant people, “will inherit the earth.”

Adding to this view, the covenant Reformed believer will further note that the NT writers never mentioned a literal fulfillment of the land promises in a physically restored nation of Israel. If God had intended to “restore” Israel in a literal kingdom in the physical, geopolitical territory known as “Israel,” why didn’t the NT writers provide details to such a restoration?

That point is often repeated throughout Reformed polemical literature against future premillennialism. But is it an accurate claim about the NT and Israel’s restoration? Or is it a conclusion forced upon the various texts by other external theological considerations, particularly the redemptive-historical hermeneutic utilized by covenant theology? I think it reflects the latter. I’ll back-up and begin by outlining what the Bible tells us about Israel and their land promises with this article, and address Israel’s restoration in the next. As I move along, I’ll respond to the main arguments put forth by my Reformed covenant friends against my position.

First, it is important to recognize that the land promises God made to Abraham were the major center piece to the overall Abrahamic covenant.
Beginning in Genesis chapter 12, God called Abraham to this land and there He stated He will make him a great nation (Gen. 12:1-2). Then, in Genesis 13:14-17, after Abraham separates himself from Lot, God again makes this promise to him,

14 And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are-- northward, southward, eastward, and westward;
15 "for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.
16 "And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered.
17 "Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you."

Coming to Genesis 15 God makes an official "covenant" with Abraham regarding the inheritance of the land. Verse 18 sums up the promise God made in that covenant when He says, To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates... This same promise concerning the land is reiterated once again by God in Genesis 17. God comes to Abraham, changes his name "Abram" to "Abraham" and promises, by oath of the covenant He made with him in Genesis 15, states,

7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.
8 "Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Jumping over to Exodus 32:13, when Moses intercedes for the people against God’s judgment, Moses reminds God of the covenant He made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the terms of that covenant being the promise God made to give their descendants the land forever. After his plea, God relents His judgment against Israel.

These are just a brief smattering of passages describing God’s covenant with Israel and the promises of the land He made to them. Considering the data so far as outlined in these passages, we can observe a few points:

1). First, the language is straight forward and clear that it is physical land God has in mind to give Abraham and his descendants. In fact, the land is identified with the “land of the Canaanites,” the geographic area that becomes the land occupied by the Jews and known as Israel.

2). Second, nothing in the language suggests that God meant anything other than physical territory when He promised the land to Abraham. In other words, God was not telling Abraham, "I will give this land to you and your descendants, but really it’s just a type for heaven, so don't take my words in a "wooden, literal fashion." As far as Abraham is concerned, he believed he was being promised the possession of physical territory that he and his descendants will occupy forever.

Now, covenant Reformed apologists will argue that promise was “expanded” by God in His redemptive purposes so that now we shouldn’t take it in a “wooden, literal fashion” like premillennialists do. I would agree God later “expands” upon this promise to include the gentiles and extend salvation throughout the global nations, but “expanding” on the promise is different from nullifying, cancelling, or replacing specific terms of that promise. The inclusion of the gentiles in the New Covenant doesn’t cancel those land promises God made to His people, the Jews.

3). Adding to that last point, God says several times that He gives the land to Abraham and his descendants “forever.” Moreover, in Genesis 17:7, 8, this covenant promise is described as an "everlasting" covenant and the land is described as an “everlasting possession.” Now, if we take the words “forever” and “everlasting” in their normal meaning, they describe something that is “forever” and “everlasting.” Thus, no matter if Israel’s possession of the land is interrupted due to their disobedience and the people are removed from the land, the idea of “everlasting” means God will come through with the fulfillment of His promise and restore them at some future point.

Keeping these observations in mind, many covenant Reformed proponents argue that the idea of “forever” or “everlasting,” particularly in Genesis 17:8 where God says the land of Canaan will be an “everlasting possession,” does not necessarily mean “everlasting” in a literal sense [i.e., Crenshaw/Gunn, 241ff.*]. In other words, “everlasting” should be understood in a conditional sense. The reason being is that context defines the meaning.

Though it is true, they explain, that “everlasting” typically means “everlasting” in the sense of “eternal” and “never ending,” it doesn’t carry this meaning in every passage. For instance, in Exodus 40:15, the priests are said to be “anointed” so as to be admitted to a “everlasting” priesthood. We know the priesthood ended when the “Great High Priest” came.

Moreover, the occupation of the land was conditioned upon Israel’s obedience to the covenant God made with them. Deuteronomy 4:25-27, for example, reads,

25 "When you beget children and grandchildren and have grown old in the land, and act corruptly and make a carved image in the form of anything, and do evil in the sight of the LORD your God to provoke Him to anger,
26 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you cross over the Jordan to possess; you will not prolong your days in it, but will be utterly destroyed.
27 "And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you.

Obviously, according to that passage, the idea of the land being “an everlasting possession” is conditioned upon Israel faithfully maintaining the terms of the covenant. We know the people were not faithful and were removed from the land in exile during the Babylonian captivity, and when they rejected their Messiah, they were permanently removed from their land in 70 AD.

At first glance, I can sorta see how this may be compelling argumentation, but there are some problems with it.

I’ll sketch out my response.

Honestly, I do not find any exegetical or theological warrant in the biblical text, OT or NT, to redefine the word “everlasting” in a conditional sense as it describes the land promises.

Of all the major covenants mentioned in the Bible, the Noahic (Genesis 9), the Abrahamic (Genesis 15, 17 etc.), the Mosaic (Exodus 19, 20), the Palestinian (Deuteronomy 30:1-10), the Davidic (2 Samuel 7:12-16), and the New (Jeremiah 31:33-34), all of them except the Mosaic covenant are described in terms of being “everlasting” or being “forever.” That is because they are unconditional, established by God’s divine sovereignty in spite of the response of the receiving party, in this case, Israel.

One can argue that the Mosaic covenant was established by God’s divine sovereignty in that He alone freed Israel from Egyptian bondage and gave His law to be kept by them. However, it is not defined as being “everlasting” because it was not designed to be “everlasting” in the same manner the others were. The Mosaic covenant functioned as a national constitution for Israel as a theocratic nation. It was also meant to demonstrate the holiness of God and point to the need for a perfect, everlasting sacrifice, what the New Covenant foretold and was ratified in the work of Christ.

The Mosaic covenant did have specific conditions set upon the occupants of the land that if they disobeyed the terms of the covenant they would forfeit their occupancy in the land. But those conditions do not nullify the previous promise made to Abraham for his descendants to possess the land forever as Paul writes to the Galatians in 3:17.

When we come to the NT, all of the unconditional covenants revealed in the OT culminate in the ratification of the New covenant. But the NT writers narrowly focus upon the soteriological aspects of the New covenant. Such things as the fulfillment of the priestly sacrifices, God’s laws being “written on the heart,” a new heart that willing obeys those laws, and the out pouring of God’s Spirit. That is understandable, because Christ’s first coming was for the purpose of securing eternal life for His elect. R.K. McGregor-Wright explains the New covenant this way,

This covenant was the subject of much OT prediction and was announced to his people by Jesus as the new Moses in the Upper Room, and ratified by God on the Cross (Heb. 13:20). It is called "eternal" in Isa. 24:5, 61:8, Jer. 32:40, 50:5 and in Hebrews 13:20. It was made with “spiritual” Israel, i.e., with the Elect of God in Christ, and contains at least a dozen specific promises to them, including some of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. It includes the future regenerate Israel and therefore will later incorporate promises of the Palestinian and Davidic covenants. Its fulfillment rests ultimately on the gracious "I will" of Jehovah himself. It absolutely guarantees the salvation of the elect and includes no one else. It was to be made only with those who "know the Lord," according to Jer. 31:33-34, and therefore cannot be a “family” or “national” covenant like the Mosaic was, but is entered into only by believers upon the exercise of saving faith.

The New covenant has at this time salvific implications to God’s spiritual people, the elect, both Jew and gentile. It will have physical implications in the future when God, through the work of the New covenant, saves all of national Israel in the eschatological future. What Deuteronomy 4:29-30 prophecy as happening during the “latter days.”

As I noted at the outset, It is important to understand that the “everlasting possession” of the land is a key element to the Abrahamic covenant which factors significantly in the establishment of the New Covenant. I don’t believe God’s promise to save Israel’s can be separated from His promise to give them the land. In fact, when we examine the OT passages where God declares His intention to save Israel, that salvation always includes the promise to establish the people in the land. Additionally, it will be a holy people willing obedient to their God because of the spiritual renewal He sovereignly brings upon the people.

Consider the “New” covenant sounding language in Deuteronomy 4:29-31; 30:6, Ezekiel 36:24-28; 37:14, 22-23, 26-28; Zechariah 14:20-21. There is mention of Israel receiving new hearts, having circumcised hearts, obeying from the heart God’s law, sovereignly awakened by God to see their Messiah, having clean water sprinkled on them, and having God’s Spirit dwelling with them, and all of these spiritual promises of salvation are in conjunction with the promise to be reestablished in the physical land. Now Israel can meet those conditions of obedience in order to dwell in the land because they will obey from a divinely changed heart.

*If you read Crenshaw and Gunn you will note how they cherry pick passages to support their position. For example, by only citing the first part of Deuteronomy 4 concerning the curses brought upon Israel and their removal from the land, they ignore the latter part of the chapter where God tells of Israel’s restoration.

Sources

Curtis Crenshaw and Grover Gunn, Dispensationaism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow
John Feinberg, ed, Continuity and Discontinuity
R.K. McGregor-Wright, Historical Doubts Concerning One “Covenant of Grace [unpublished paper]

For My Prog Acquaintances

2012-01-23T04:50:00.000-08:00

Who Love Hating on Homeschoolers

I wish he'd hit on spelling bees and 98 Ford passenger vans, but he covers a lot of the basics. The Sparky vest is a nice touch.

On Interpreting the OT with the NT

2012-01-20T05:55:00.001-08:00

One of the primary differences between Christians who adhere more to dispensational distinctives and those who may adhere to covenant Reformed distinctives is how the two groups use the NT to understand the OT.

Those of the Reformed view (and those of the NCT perspective, see #2) tend to read the NT back onto the OT allowing it to re-interpret at times passages in the OT, especially those passages that have prophetic, eschatological significance. They argue that the NT is the pentacle of God's revelation, because it reveals Jesus Christ, who is the focus and fulfillment of God's redemptive purposes. Thus, OT prophetic passages that speak of God promise being fulfilled need to be interpreted with the NT as the starting point, and our understanding of the OT passages directing us to Jesus.

Paul Henebury provides us with 40 reasons why this hermeneutic is problematic and can make for some seriously bad Bible study. They are presented in two articles:

Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the Old Testament by the New: The First Twenty

Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the Old Testament by the New: The Last Twenty

By the way. This is the stuff I want to see Jamin Hubner and his young buddies genuinely interact with. Not those tomato can "dispensational" theologians like Joel Rosenberg and John Hagee they always beat on.

Galatians and the Abrahamic Covenant

2012-01-17T05:10:00.000-08:00

I noted the first part in this series back before Christmas.

Paul Henebury has some good insights on Paul's teaching in Galatians three on the idea of "seed" and the Abrahamic covenant. He has written three more articles on the subject plus an addendum interacting with objections. They supplement my posts I am currently compiling that detail the premillennial understanding of the land promises.

Galatians 3, the Land, and the Abrahamic Covenant: What was Paul Thinking?

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Addendum

Paul summarizes his main point in the fourth post by writing,

In disagreeing with Gunn I am not saying that he is not justified in attending to the places in Genesis where the apostle appears to be getting his language about “and to your seed” from: that is, from Genesis 12 through 22. The problem comes in when he extrapolates from the false notion that Paul is quoting from only two places in the Septuagint and claims the land promise of these “seed” passages must be transferred to the Church and turned magically into promises of heaven. When Christians insist that this must be done they are going beyond the teaching of the NT, not to say the apostle Paul elsewhere (e.g. Romans 11). They are also claiming the OT cannot be properly understood without the New – a claim which sounds pious enough, until it is analyzed in light of its logical outcome...
My response (which, remember, was just a part response) is that in order for the Abrahamic covenant to be tied to the Church (especially its Gentile contingent), that covenant must be connected to the New covenant in Christ. If that is true then Paul is thinking along these lines when he cites the four words “and to your seed” from Genesis. He most probably does not have an exact reference in mind, as he did with his earlier quotation of Genesis 15:6, but rather has in view the repeated use of the phrase through the Abrahamic narrative (if I had to make a guess which passage Paul may have been citing I would go for Gen. 22:18).

I have to admit I appreciate the comment about transferring the "seed" passages onto the NT Church and "magically" turning them into promises just about heaven.

Frisbee Tricks

2012-01-16T05:55:00.000-08:00

I bet this guy makes like a lot of money.

Gleanings in 1 Samuel [4]

2012-01-13T06:20:00.000-08:00

Two Families Contrasted [2:12-36]

The book of 1 Samuel takes place during the time of the Judges. It was a spiritually dark time in Israel's history because the people were not committed to the Lord and allowed themselves to be compromised by the surrounding pagan culture. Apostasy abounded as a result. However, there were bright spots. Hannah's faith in Yahweh being a prime example.

Hannah was childless. In Israel at the time, her condition could be understood as divine judgment against the individual. Hannah brings her trial to the Lord, prays to Him to give her a child that she in turn will give back to Him for service. God answered her prayer, and from this humble woman, Samuel is raised up to become a nationally recognized prophet for God.

After her prayer we are told in verse 11 how she leaves a young Samuel at the Tabernacle where he "ministered to the LORD before Eli the priest."

Verse 12 introduces us to the major contrast between Eli's house and Elkanah's, Samuel's father, house. Whereas Elkanah's house is blessed of the Lord, we see Eli's house coming under God's severe judgment.

I. Parental Ineptitude [12]

The text reveals that Eli's two sons, Hophi and Phinehas, were corrupt. Literally, the description is "sons of Belial." They were wicked good for nothings as will be explained as the narrative unfolds. The idea of being a "sons of Belial," speaks to Eli's character with parenting, or better, lack of parenting. He essentially allowed his sons to run riot with corrupting the people of God.

Even though his two sons bear the responsibility for their wicked actions, Eli is also responsible for not moving against them as both their father, and as the high priest.

II. Priestly Corruption [13-17; 22-25]

The corruption of Hophni and Phinehas is revealed in their roles as "ministers." When people came forth to offer their sacrifices as prescribed in Leviticus 10:14, 15, they would send their servant to get the best portion (the portion meant to be given to the Lord) for their consumption.

The law was explicit in that they were required to burn off the fat of the animal when it was offered (Leviticus 7:22-25), yet they threatened with violence those worshipers who refused them (2:16). It got to the point where the people despised the sacrifice, because it would be pointless to bring it if a couple of corrupt priests refused to do the ceremony properly.

Additionally, we are told in 2:22 that Eli's two sons would commit sexual sin with the women who came to the tabernacle.

In all of this, Eli lightly rebuked them for their behavior (2:23). What they did was worthy of strict judgment, even death, but Eli really did nothing. One interesting editorial footnote says in 2:25 that Eli's two sons "did not heed the voice of their father, because the LORD desired to kill them." If Eli would not move, God would, and He does.

Now, contrast this spiritually dysfunctional house with Samuel's ministry (2:18-21):

- Samuel ministered before the LORD - unlike Eli's sons who abused their office with corruption.
- God blessed Hannah with more children besides Samuel, five in all, three sons and two daughters.
- Samuel grew in favor with both God and men, whereas Eli's two sons are said to have not known the LORD.

III. Prophetic Judgment [27-36]

At last God proclaims his judgment against Eli and his two sons through the ministry of an unnamed "man of God." The judgment against Eli is outlined in four major points:

- Squandered his special calling as a high priest, an office he should have held in high honor
- Held the sacrifices he offered in contempt, "kick at my sacrifices."
- Honored his sons more than God, allowing them to get away with their sin.
- Eli benefited from their corruption of the sacrifices by taking the best of the offering.

Because of this, Eli and his house is to be cut-off. In other words, his house, his family linage, will no longer serve as priests.

This is a interesting prophecy, because it sets in motion the fulfillment of a previous prophecy made to Phinehas, Aaron's grandson in Numbers 25, who stood up against unrighteousness by executing an apostate Israelite who brazenly brought a pagan woman to the tabernacle. According to the Lord's word to Moses, He was going to make Eleazar's house, Phinehas's father, the family of Levites who would supply the priests who serve in the Tabernacle.

When learn from 1 Kings 2:26-27, 35, that God fulfills his words to Eli, removing his descendant, Abiathar from being high priest and putting in his place, Zadok. Thus, the priestly line of Ithamar, that had taken over the roll as high priest in the past at one point, is removed, and the priestly line of Eleazar is reinstated and established with supplying the high priests.

No Sympathy for the Fat Guy

2012-01-10T06:50:00.000-08:00

Since when has my diet and weight been a matter of sin and judgment?

Or, Can I enjoy watching Man Vs. Food without feeling shame?

Every Christmas the secular media bombards us with guilt inducing special reports gravely warning us to lay off the turkey, ham, and prime rib dinners, along with all that other awesome, high calorie food that makes us happy, or we will die early, pathetic deaths. It was no different this past Christmas.

Usually the reports are 2 minute “health” segments on channels like CNN narrated by a gorgeous reporterette who could easily have a second job as a Victoria’s Secret lingerie model. She earnestly cites health stats on obesity accompanied by video images of the torsos of large bottomed men and women walking down the street. If we don’t watch what we eat, and start eating healthy foods, like Brussels sprouts, we risk eating ourselves into a heart-attack or death by diabetes; or worse, living a shortened life of crippling scorn and ridicule as an unpopular fat person who sweats a lot and has to wear ill fitting clothes with elastic waste bands like they sell at Wal-Mart.

I guess I expect our worldly society to obsess over our diets. Progressive ideology has permeated our Western culture the last century or so, and has made health and fitness an idol that must be obeyed in order to have a meaningful life.

It’s annoying, however, to see Christians latch onto this health and fitness thinking and assign it some weird, spiritual value. Generally, there are two groups. First are the modern food pharisees, who insist that eating kosher food as outlined in the Bible is the true, spiritual Christianly thing to do. If we would only eat “God’s ordained food” and not those things “processed by man,” all the cancer in the world would dry up and we would live to like 170 or more.

The second group equate the sin of gluttony with eating too much and being overweight. Thus, if you happen to enjoy eating the 2600 calorie “Mega Onion” appetizer from Claim Jumpers or where ever, you’re calling down the wrath of God upon your head.

Two articles I encountered this past Christmas take this second approach regarding the Christian and his food. First is an article by a Baptist missions director, It’s the Most Wonderful Sin of the Year, in which he comes close to likening overeating (a picture of a fat guy scarfing down a bowl of potato chips illustrates the article) to being an unforgivable sin. He also berates preachers for not preaching against overeating enough from the pulpit.

Think about that article’s title a moment. “Sin” implies a violation of God’s law. Is this writer seriously telling me that if I have a hankering to have a piece of pumpkin pie AND a piece of chocolate pie at the same time after my rich, starchy holiday meal, I am sinning against God? Really?

The second article I read is entitled, Jesus Died for Your Food Coma, and the author of this article, like the author of the first article, erroneously equates gluttony with overeating. In fact, a definition of “gluttony” is provided which is defined as “habitual greed or excess in eating.” To really nail it home, Jerry Bridges “Respectable Sins” is cited. Man. mentioning Jerry Bridges makes the bumps stand up on your arm, doesn’t it?

The problem with both these articles, and the recent wave of bloggers who errantly equate gluttony with overeating, is that the Bible doesn’t define gluttony as “overeating;” certainly not “overeating” as in eating heaps of Buca Di Beppo’s “Mama Mia’s Spaghetti and Meatball Family Dinner Platter.”

I left some comments at that second article challenging the definition of gluttony that is provided. One fellow responded by asking me “how then does the Bible define gluttony?”

Certainly, the concept of “gluttony” is not directly defined in Scripture. In fact, as the author of that first article notes, it is rarely mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments, around 6 or so times to be exact. In order to get an understanding of “gluttony,” the surrounding context has to be considered where the word is found.

The first mention of “gluttony” is in Deuteronomy 21:20 And they shall say to the elders of his city,`This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.”

There are a few observations to be made from this text. 1). First, note the overall context is parents bringing a son to the city elders in order for them to pass judgment upon him. Their judgment against him could lead to his execution by stoning. 2). Next, gluttony is tied to being a drunkard. He not only is eating a lot, but drinking himself drunk. 3). Third, the parents’ testimony of the son is that he is “stubborn and rebellious,” meaning that he refuses to receive instruction, is obstinate against both parental and civil authority, and it is implied that he is living a life flaunting God’s law and not fearing the Lord at all. Eli’s two good-for-nothing sons, Hophni and Phinehas fit this description (1 Sam. 2:12-17).

There a couple of Proverbs that mention “gluttons.” Proverbs 28:7 is the most relevant for our discussion and it reads, Whoever keeps the law is a discerning son, But a companion of gluttons shames his father. Notice that a discerning son is said to be one who “keeps the law.” Simply put, he loves and fears the Lord. However, the son who is “a companion of gluttons” is the son who shames his father. It’s implied he doesn’t keep the law, nor does he fear God. The verses following contrast a good son with the ones who extort from the poor, who despises God’s law, and intentionally leads righteous people astray.

In the NT, Jesus is accused of being a “winebibber and a glutton” and eating with sinners (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34). Sinners in this case being defined as tax collectors (those who extort money), and other assortment of sinners. When Paul wrote Titus, he mentions how Cretans are “liars, evil beasts, and lazy gluttons.” liars are in the same category as gluttons, who are described by the adjective, “lazy.” These describe people who are morally unscrupulous and basically ungodly with their behavior and lifestyle.

Now, when we pull together all the scant discussions of gluttony mentioned in the Bible, do we seriously think it is Bubba the deacon who is in mind? A guy who is an outstanding Christian who teaches Sunday school (and is a Calvinist!), but who happens to be 50 pounds overweight and enjoys eating a big breakfast at Bob Evans every Saturday morning with his family?

Gluttony is certainly a sin, but overeating on Thanksgiving is not gluttony. If it is, how exactly are pastors to confront this sin? What is the “standard” for overeating? Wouldn’t it be different from one person to the next? I had a friend in college who was in tremendous physical shape but ate like a horse. He had a high metabolism. He could easily consume 3 or 4 big macs and they wouldn’t do a thing to his health. The author of the second article above suggests that a person’s high metabolism is not an excuse for “overeating.” But why? One person’s “overeating” may be normal eating for another person as long as there are no dire health consequences.

If overeating is gluttony, and pastors should take up the call to condemn the sin of overeating from the pulpit, are these folks prepared to exercise church discipline against obese people who eat too much? Seriously. If overeating is “sin” that means these people are violating God’s Word. They need to be called to repentance and if they don’t repent, then the elders move to the steps of Matthew 18.

Again, this means we need to have in place a standard of measurement for obesity and overeating. The Bible is absolutely silent regarding such standards, and knowing that the standards put out by the government are for the most part absurd, how exactly can a pastor honestly condemn overeating from the pulpit?

Look. Is overeating and obesity a serious health problem in our day and age? Yes. But it isn’t the sin of gluttony. We may need to confront overeating and obesity in the local church, but let’s be exegetically precise as to what we are confronting. The overeating these young writers are concerned with falls more in the category of personal discipline, like quitting smoking, or exercising more, or being a workaholic. Those areas can be bad habits, but they are not “sinful.”

I am reminded of Deuteronomy 14:26 which reads, And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. Ironically, this is the verse the YRR use to justify their theological kegger parties and they are typically the ones equating gluttony with overeating. Rather than condemning “overeating” per se, I see God telling me to rejoice in the good things He has provided and lots of it, like coconut fried shrimp from Outback Steakhouse.

Politically Correct Dating

2012-01-09T06:00:00.000-08:00

Thoughts on the use of BCE and CE.
In case you were wondering...

AD 2012 or 2012 CE?

OEC On Trial - Biblical Interpretation

2012-01-08T16:30:00.000-08:00

Answers in Genesis is putting chapters from their book on old earth creationism on-line. This segment outlines interpretative points.

Old Earth Creationism on Trial: "Biblical" Arguments

Aeropress Coffee: A Review

2012-01-06T05:30:00.000-08:00

Let me tell you about one of the better Christmas gifts Santee Claws brought me.

So the morning after me and the family arrived in Arkansas, I'm talking with my mom about gifts for my brother and she tells me about getting him this Aeropress coffee thingy he had put on his Amazon wish list. She had accidentally order two, and she says, "I was going to return it unless you want it."

Being the shameless, self-righteous coffee snob that I am who is constantly on a quest to drink the greatest cup of joe ever made, I thought, "sure." So, I unpacked the box, and using the Peet's coffee I brought with me, I followed the easy instructions that are conveniently provided for you in a little booklet in like, 30 languages, including PNG Pidgin, and took a sip of my freshly brewed coffee made with an Aeropress.

I stood fixed in one spot as the hot liquid bathed my taste buds in coffee goodness. It was as if reality peeled away for a moment and I experienced the ability to see through time and space like that Dave Bowman guy in 2001.

Maybe I am stretching it a bit, but it was a seriously excellent tasting cup of coffee.

The Aeropress is a real simple contraption. Apparently invented just in 2005 or thereabouts by a Stanford grad. The press is a plastic cylinder in which you put the coffee, and an enormous syringe plunger device fits inside that you use to gently push the water down over the grounds into the mug. The video below explains some of the reason why it makes an amazing cup of coffee so check it out.

Knowing how I am so conceited about my coffee, I had the Chemex device recommended to me as an alternative to the coffee pot. I picked one up, and it's important to note that they're not cheap, running at about 35 bucks for an average sized one, but I never really grew to like it. The primary reason was the fact my coffee wasn't hot like I like. It would be warm, for sure, but when you pour the hot water over the grounds, it loses a lot of its heat the four minutes or so it takes to go through it's "brewing" process. I like my coffee to have a bit of a bite when I begin to drink it.

Not so with the Aeropress. Once you pour the water in, the process takes no more than 30 seconds or less, so you still have the heat in the coffee. Plus, clean up is easy. All you have to do is twist off the filter cap, and press the plunger all the way through over a trash can. A little coffee ground puck pushes out the end with a satisfying "pop." Swish the parts with some water and soap, and it's clean as a whistle.

There are a ton of videos demonstrating it's use. I have embed one of the better demonstrations. There is even a yearly contest, as I understand it, where contestants meet to show off their ability to make a fabulous cup of coffee.

Vintage Hip and Thigh

2012-01-04T06:35:00.000-08:00

Before Mark Driscoll and his wife published their Karma Sutra for Christians book this past week, Driscoll preached a series of sleazy messages that twisted the Song of Solomon into a book about sex tips to spice up the bedroom.

John MacArthur published four articles in response to Driscoll, and of course, the reaction he received from the YRR fellows was that he is a cane waving old man who has outlived his usefulness and needs to shut-up.

I was so incensed by their dismissiveness I punched out my own response. Since a number of blogger personalities are writing reviews of Driscoll’s new book, I thought I would repost the rant I wrote a couple of years ago. I had to modify it significantly because a number of the links I noted no longer work and a couple of the personalities involved with Driscoll at the time, most notably, John Piper, no long have a hand in his mentoring, or at least that is what I understand. The original article can be read HERE, my up-dated one is below.

Glamour Magazine Theology

A Rant

For a bit of background, it may be helpful for uninformed readers to check out these articles by John MacArthur posted, here, here, here, and here. If anything, read the last one.

I will confess up front that I am a member of Grace Community Church and I work at Grace to You radio ministries. I would imagine that admission instantly discredits any remarks I may make against Mark Driscoll in the minds of his supporters as the whining criticisms of another sycophantic MacArthurite. I guess that is to be expected; but my reaction is one of a Christian man who loves holiness and has a deep passion for personal holiness in the lives of God's people, and God's pastors are to set the example of holiness for others to emulate.

When I read with stunned dismay the comments by young bloggers in reaction to John MacArthur's articles on the Song of Solomon and his expressed alarm at the recent practice of preachers, most notably Mark Driscoll, to teach sexually explicit messages taken from the book, my passion for holiness was stirred and I had to speak my mind. I apologize in advance if my thoughts ramble. I have been mulling them over in my mind for a number of days, but that doesn't necessarily mean I will sound coherent. And they are certainly my own and I bear the responsibility for them.

A current trend in American "Christendom" these days is preachers basically scandalizing their congregations by talking openly about sexual matters from the pulpit. These lurid sermons are suppose to engage the culture by telling worldly people Christians aren't hung up about sex, and God is cool about sex, too.

The main culprit is Mark Driscoll, who presented a sermon series from the Song of Solomon as ancient sex-tips to spice up the bed room like those articles I see advertised on the cover of Glamour and Redbook magazines. But other pastors also believe they too need to be graphic in their discussions of sex, including the descriptions of anatomy and performed acts.

John is rightly concerned, because in addition to mangling the divine picture God paints in the Song of Solomon of pure, marital love between a husband and a wife by reading into it the most prurient images imaginable, there are Christians who genuinely defend such sex talk from the pulpit and dismiss these type of sermons out of hand as if nothing troubling has taken place. The real trouble maker, according to these people, are folks like John who is an old fuddy-dud man living in a past generation that no longer has a relevant thing to offer our world.

Laying aside the exegesis of the Song of Solomon, my rant is aimed at these defenders. Predictably, the vast majority of John's critics and Driscoll's enablers are college students or college graduates. They are young men who identify with being the restless and reformed "new" Calvinists. They think because Mark Driscoll also identifies with "new" Calvinism, claims to be orthodox, and has a popular ministry in Seattle, he is to be heard.

A few bloggers even annoyingly attempt to offer thoughtful analysis of the whole Driscoll affair by framing the controversy he generates and the critics, like John who takes the time to respond, as disagreeing over secondary matters as to what methods one should use to engage the culture.

Even more galling is how these 20-something bloggers will offer their pastoral advice as if they are speaking from a wisdom that transcends everyone who has provided an opinion on the matter; but in reality, their assuredness shouts a hubris of symphonic levels. They challenge John MacArthur, a man who has been in ministry longer than many of them have been alive, treating him as if he were a Fundamentalist finger-wagger decrying contemporary Christian rock music.

Speaking from personal experience, over twenty years ago I was once a young Calvinist, but I sought to keep myself away from being influenced by a sex drenched culture (even in the Bible-belt state of Arkansas) and I would had been appalled to hear this kind of sexual stuff that is passed off as biblical preaching.

In fact, I can remember vividly a presentation on pornography I heard at my Church that was similar in content as the messages Driscoll gave on the Song of Solomon. There was a local moral crusader who attended our Church. He believed it was his calling in life to make a public nuisance of himself by going to every liquor store, quick mart, and mom-and-pop video rental place and make sure they weren't selling dirty magazines or X-rated videos.

Some how he managed to talk our pastor into letting him give a presentation on why pornography was detrimental to our society. For 25 minutes or so on this one Wednesday evening, I fidgeted uncomfortably as he graphically described sexual deviancy from the pulpit of my church. Being in mixed company with young children present as he describe porn was bad enough, but what made me sick was him dishonoring God's people by subjecting them to sinful images just because he thought "we need to know what's going on."

With that introduction I have some questions and comments I would like to share with the friends of Driscoll who think this guy is a qualified preacher who is doing much to further the kingdom of God:

- Why is it even necessary for him to graphically address the topic of sex from the pulpit? Take for instance the message he gave at a Scottish church. Why was it necessary for him to name specific anatomical parts during his talk? Even if he used medical terminology, how exactly is describing reproductive organs a good thing for edification on a Sunday morning?

- Do any of Driscoll's defenders even care if young children were present with their parents to hear his sexually charged talks? I would imagine not, seeing a good portion of them are probably not married. I happen to be a parent of young boys. My wife and I do all we can to protect them from our sexually perverse culture, but now, parents have to protect their children from a Church service, too? Will church services be subject to a rating system so I can know whether or not I should attend the particular service? I am amazed that parents who would otherwise be outraged if a radical teacher exposed their 10 year olds to sexual material in a public school class room want to give Driscoll a pass on his sex talks because he is supposedly a gifted communicator and has a big ministry in Seattle and is teaching the Bible.

- Additionally, Driscoll is a public figure whose influence sways thousands and he speaks his sex talk in a public forum. That makes him open for any and all criticism, regardless if he is being “discipled” by naïve, big name mentors. If Todd Bentley, the grandma smashing evangelist in Florida, were being discipled by a fellow Pentecostal like Gordon Fee or Michael Brown, I don't believe any of Driscoll's defenders would insist Bentley was above public scrutiny and would demand we talk with him privately first before we pointed out his ministry was clownish.

- Then lastly, and I say this with sober-faced fear and trembling: I am fearful Driscoll is in danger of rushing headlong to a scandal. I do not wish at all a calamity like that to befall him. I pray it will never happen, because it would be more than just grievous, but could possibly have catastrophic consequences. But let us be frank: many of the major scandals in the past 20 years or so involving pastors falling from ministry revealed later an unhealthy preoccupation with denouncing sexual sin or secret sins in their sermons. I truly hope I am overreacting, but I don't believe the Proverbs speak in vain on the urgency of guarding our hearts.

I am reminded of what the Scriptures say of Rehoboam in 2 Kings 12:8, But he rejected the advice which the elders had given him, and consulted the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him. The new king rejected the wise words of his elders and heeded the foolish naivety of his young and restless friends. As a result, the nation was divided and set in motion patterns of rebellion which only plunged the people of Israel into judgment. I do hope these young men who are enamored with Mark Driscoll's notoriety will come to hear the warnings of their elders.

Girl Toys

2012-01-02T11:35:00.000-08:00

Right before Christmas, I was alerted to an article written by a mush-minded progressive mother who wonders why "society" gets upset if one of her sons was to enjoy playing with the new "girly" Legos. She gushes how he loves pink and all things feminine and soft, so he would LOVE playing with the new feminized Legos. The mother doesn't care if they are toys meant for girls and if he gets his culturally defined "gender roles" all messed up.

This mother's mentally deranged parenting aside, I wanted to fix our attention on this little note at the top of the article:

Editor's Note: Kelly Byrom is HLNtv.com's Art Director and the mother of three children. She and her husband are committed to encouraging and supporting their daughter and both of their sons to follow their hearts and be true to themselves. Boys in tutus don't scare them at all.

Zero in upon the second sentence: "She and her husband are committed to encouraging and supporting their daughter and both of their sons to follow their hearts and be true to themselves."

That sentence is a hypocritical falsehood. Initially, I almost wrote "a lie," but upon second thought, I don't think she and her husband intend to deceive people about their parenting. I think they both, particularly the mother/author, sincerely believe they practice this philosophy of allowing their children to "follow their hearts."

It is better to call this philosophy a hypocritical falsehood because I would bet a Costco ice cream bar dipped in chocolate and smothered in praline almond chunks, that if pressed, neither parent honestly practice this philosophy. They are words merely meant to sweeten up the sensibilities of their lefty friends.

In fact, there isn't a parent worth his or her salt who lets children "follow their hearts."

Think about it, children are essentially stupid idiots. Of course they are sweet, cuddly, and cute idiots who bring laughter and joy to our lives, but they are idiots none the less. They have to be trained. They have to be shepherded. It is why Paul writes to the Ephesians that when children obey their parents, they will live long upon the earth (Eph. 6:3). That is because if children are allowed to "follow their hearts," they wouldn't live long upon the earth. They would be mauled by tigers, or choke to death on marbles, or drink antifreeze, or eat so much candy and ice cream that they would die from a diabetic coma and this after their teeth had rotted out of their heads.

If I were to allow my children to "follow their hearts," they would go without bathing for days on end, eat nothing but waffles and mac and cheese, and sit in the living room playing Wii for 12 hours straight. (Almost sounds like a 25 year-old video gamer).

Anyways, in spite of being the good liberals that she and her husband profess their family is, I bet Kelly Byrom's children would do the very same thing if they were allowed to "follow their hearts." That's why I say that editor's note is a hypocritical falsehood; she doesn't practice what she preaches.

Now. This comment is being made within the context of an article designed to subvert the normal gender roles clear thinking societies have naturally established for men and women. Kelly is taking a stand for supposedly effeminate little boys who are exhorted by moron parents to one day grow up to become sodomites, or cross-dressers, or even worse, sex-changers who will mutilate their bodies. She's wanting to stick it in the eye of all those dinosaurish, progressively backward, red-state evangelicals who listen to Focus on the Family all the time and love Sarah Palin.

But I wonder...

I know of a situation where a teenager, raised by one of these couples who practice this "we let our children follow their own heart" philosophy, came home one day from high school to inform his parents he believed in intelligent design. They went "ballistic" and had him removed from that school because, "no son of ours is gonna learn that Jesus nonsense."

Along a similar line, if in the future, one of Kelly's sons comes home from school and announces he was now a Bible-believing, evangelical Christian and he believes homosexuality is a sin, would she and her husband let him follow his heart and be true to himself?. or will a boy carrying a Bible scare them to death?

Homeward Bound

2011-12-27T05:40:00.000-08:00

The family and I leave tomorrow for home.

Remember: Nana lives in Arkansas. We live in California.

The trip coming here was uneventful, except for a flat tire in Tucson, and in fact, quite enjoyable. Even though this may sound utterly unspiritual, I must give kudos to those portable DVD players you can tie to the back seats of your car.

Man. How the times have changed. I never had the luxury of watching the entire Star Wars saga when I went on my road trips as a kid with the family back in the 70s and 80s. I had to be content looking out my window until my mind went numb.

I hope to take the 40 across. It should shave off about 4 or 5 extra hours of drive time. We pray the weather holds across the continental divide. The last thing I want to happen is to become a national tragedy when we get lost in the wilderness taking a short cut.

Needless to say, once again, regular posting and comment approval will be non-existent until this weekend or shortly there after.

Against Kwanzaa

2011-12-27T03:30:00.000-08:00

So you can have the heads up answering your muddle-minded, P.C., postmodernist friends:

Kwanzaa: Cultural or Cultic?

Merry Christmas and All That

2011-12-24T06:00:00.000-08:00

Books I Read and Heard in 2011

2011-12-22T11:35:00.000-08:00

Back in 2009, I began the yearly habit of reviewing the books I heard and read during the year. Here is my contribution for 2011.

Audio Books

I listened to a good many audio books this year. I certainly encourage my readers who love to read, but have limited time, to check out audio books. I get the bulk of mine from my local library, but there are decent internet audio book clubs where you can purchase them at a reasonable price.

Devil in the White City: Magic, Murder, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America - Erik Larson.

The book tells the story of the building of the 1893 Chicago World Fair. It was during this time period that America’s first “official” serial killer came on the scene: Herman Mudgett, who is believed to have lured anywhere between 27 to possibly 200 victims to a hotel he designed and built to kill his human victims. Larson cuts between a biography of the Fair’s chief architects, Daniel Burnham, John Root, and even George Ferris, the inventor of the Ferris wheel, and the murderous activities of Herman Mudgett, who also went by the name H.H. Holmes.

The book was okay. I preferred the retelling of Mudgett’s serial killing. (Bizarre, I know). The lives of the fair architects was somewhat boring. I also didn’t care for the reader of this book. His reading cadence rubbed me wrong.

Manhunt: The 12 Day Chase for Lincoln’s Killer - James Swanson

Hands down one of the most riveting books I listened to this past year. The book is detailed, well researched, and the retelling of John Booth’s motivation, assassination of Lincoln, and attempted escape was exciting to hear. There was actually a point where I caught myself thinking, “He’s gonna get away with it!” If you can get one non-fiction work to listen to, I would recommend this one first and foremost.

Three Vince Flynn novels, Memorial Day, Consent to Kill, American Assassin.

I like Tom Clancy novels and some folks told me if I liked them, I would like Flynn’s. Some other internet acquaintances also recommended them. However, reading the physical book doesn’t fit into my reading schedule. But they were available on audio, and for that format, they work splendidly. They center around the character, Mitch Rapp, who is a CIA black-opts operative. They obviously contain lots of bad guys doing bad stuff and getting wacked by Rapp, so you know what to expect.

The Harry Potter Series

I have it in my mind to review these audio books separately at some point because they are absolutely a joy and delight. All of my experience with Harry Potter has been from the movies. So when I read Dan’s reviews, and he and the commenters expressed lamentations of important book material left out of whatever movie, it didn’t particularly upset me. I had no context to offer a judgment. I can’t say that now. I finished listening to the Deathly Hallows a week or so before I watched the last movie. The book totally ruined the movie for me. I couldn’t believe the way the film-makers man-handled the book material.

At any rate, when I finished the Flynn novel, American Assassin, I wondered if our county library had the Harry Potter series in audio format. They did, and I began to work my way through the novels. The special thing about the audio version is the reader, Jim Dale, who brings each and every character to life with just his voice. He is an amazing talent. It was like hearing a radio theater rather than a novel being read. He had a voice for all of the main characters, and even the supporting cast. From a drunken Winky, Dobby the elf, Delores Umbrage, Professor Binns, and Grawp, Dale is able to give each of them an unique personality. If you are a Potter fan who read through the books, and you haven’t heard the audio editions, you will thoroughly enjoy a revisit.

Regular Books

Slave - John MacArthur. This is probably one of John’s better treatments on the doctrines of salvation. Not only does he provide an overview of Christ’s Lordship and our relationship to Him, but he provides a good historical overview of slavery in the ancient world.

Into the Wild - John Krakauer. See my fuller review HERE.

Prophets of Israel - Leon Wood. This is Leon Wood’s tremendous study on the OT prophets in Israel’s history. I have heard some folks say Wood is boring, but maybe I am a geek; I love reading his stuff.

John MacArthur: Servant of the Word and Flock - Iain Murray. See my fuller review HERE.

Heart of Anger: Practical Help for the Prevention and Cure of Anger in Children - Lou Priolo This book has been sitting on my shelf for many years, but I never read it. Now that I have children, and as they get older, they are beginning to experience moments of personal anger, Priolo’s book has been a valuable help in helping my wife and I think through how to address their attitude. I appreciate how Priolo gets right to the issue of anger: a person’s sinful heart. Actually, even though this book is primarily geared toward parents raising children, there are some good basic insights toward addressing anger in the heart of any person no matter how old he or she may be.

Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity - Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger. I hope to have a fuller review of this book at some later time, D.V. In the meantime, this is one of best apologetic books Christians can read. The authors deal primarily with the claims of Walter Bauer and many of his modern supporters, like Bart Ehrman, who say that the Christian faith we know today emerged from disunified and competing early church “Christian” orthodoxies.” Kostenberger writes the first portion of the book addressing what the early church truly believed about the person of Christ. Kruger writes the second part detailing what the early church believed about the NT documents and which books they affirmed as canon and why.

World Tilting Gospel and God’s Wisdom in Proverbs - Dan Phillips. The two books of one of my favorite all-time writers. See my reviews HERE and HERE.

Something Queer Happened to America - Michael Brown. I also hope to have a fuller review of this book later, too. Dr. Brown has written frightening book. He documents the rise of the homosexual movement in America and throughout the world. He deals with all the major arguments and talking points of the gay agenda (including the lie that “there is no gay agenda”). His research is disturbing, but well documented with a massive section of end-notes. Homosexuality is one of the major apologetic issues facing the Christian church and Dr. Brown has provided a much needed work to help us engage it effectively.

Why Do We Believe in God

2011-12-20T07:20:00.000-08:00

The Sunday before we left on our trip, Don Green filled the pulpit in our fellowship group. He preached a message entitled, Why Do We Believe in God? I thought I would alert readers in light of recent comment discussions with a couple of atheistic skeptics.

A more expanded version can be located HERE.

Why Israel's Salvation Matters

2011-12-18T15:20:00.000-08:00

I saw this video linked over at Alan Kurschner's new site. I watched it shortly before I left for my trip. It's Michael Brown teaching at a large church in Northern California on the salvation and restoration of Israel.

Some may raise a red flag because it is Michael Brown. He does run in charismatic circles; and I mean it's not those "Reformed," Sovereign Grace charismatic circles. Ignore that smudge against his personal theology, because I do think this lecture has some good stuff in it worthy of your time.

Also, I will say I disagree with him on two points. First, I believe he is a bit unfair with my Reformed brethren and their theology of fulfillment. He zeroes in on the concept of "replacement theology," and though I think Reformed theology can be accurately labeled a "replacement" theology, in fairness, it is important to note how they define the concept. Brown focuses on "replacement" implying that they are all antisemitic, and that is hardly the truth. It would have been helpful for him to interact with their definitions and distinctions.

Then secondly, he states in one of his points that Jesus will not come until all of Israel is saved. I am not convinced of his argument. Not only does it reek of Arminianism, which is possible knowing Dr. Brown is Arminian, but he glosses over those passages of scripture, like Deuteronomy 30:1-10 that speak of God being the one who brings about Israel's salvation. Israel will all certainly be saved, but it is God who sovereignly brings about that salvation in spite of the churches lack of Jewish evangelism.

Why Israel's Salvation Matters

Gleanings in 1st Samuel [3]

2011-12-12T06:20:00.000-08:00

The Theology of Hannah’s Prayer [1:12-2:10]

I have embarked upon a devotional study of 1 Samuel. The book presents the life of Israel’s last major Judge and first major prophet – Samuel.

He becomes the mouthpiece of God. First Samuel 3:1 states: The Word of the LORD was rare, which means, there was no divine revelation. Through Samuel, God uses him to fulfill the role of a revelation giver to Israel.

Chapter 1 introduces us to Samuel’s family. His father Elkanah had married Hannah. But she was barren and could not have children. The text tells us God had closed her womb (1:5). Elkanah took a second wife, Peninnah, who would bear the children. She became an adversary of sorts to Hannah because of this role.

Hannah, then, goes to the Lord with her trial. When she and her husband were in Shiloh at the tabernacle during their annual pilgrimage of worship, Hannah prays. She vows a vow: If God would grant her a child she in turn would give the child back to the Lord. God grants her request, and shortly after their return from the tabernacle, Hannah becomes pregnant with Samuel.

When she returns to the tabernacle a year later, her heart is filled with praise to the LORD for the work He had done in her life. The prayer she offers is filled with rich, theological insight. This prayer not only record’s Hannah’s final words in 1 Samuel, but it is one of the longer prayers made by a woman in Scripture. Moreover, Hannah’s prayer emphasizes one great theme – God is the sovereign reverser of fortune. In Hannah’s case, a humble woman gave birth to the child who will become one of the greatest prophets in all Israel.

There are some important factors to consider in Hannah’s prayer that can model for us a theological mindset when we ourselves pray. Allow me to consider four expressions of theological praying:

I. Hannah’s Exaltation (2:1-2)

Hannah begins her prayer by offering praise to the Lord. She speaks of “smiling at her enemies” and “rejoicing in God’s salvation.” Though we thinking of salvation in the sense of being delivered from our sin, in Hannah’s mind, God is her “deliverer” in that He has rescued her from the reproach of childlessness. She smiles at her enemy, Peninnah, who routinely mocked her for her condition.

She is no longer afraid of Peninnah because she is really no longer needed as a surrogate mother.

God is the “Rock” of her “salvation.” As if she recalls Deuteronomy 32:30, 31. In this time of spiritual apostasy, Hannah has a high view of God.

II. Hannah’s Admonition (2:3)

Peninnah is not specifically named, but Hannah’s words are obviously directed toward her. God is a God of knowledge. He knew of Hannah’s plight. In fact, one inspired footnote, as already pointed out, is that God was the one who brought upon Hannah’s barrenness. But God had mercy, heard Hannah’s prayer, and it is left to Him to weigh actions and to change her circumstances.

III. Hannah’s Celebration (2:4-8)

Hannah rejoices in how God has sovereignly changed her situation. Situations, in which people thought things were going well, are completely changed in an instant. Those who thought they were the certain victor are quickly destroyed. Those who were on the verge of annihilation gain victory over their enemies.

Notice her contrasts:

- Military defeat/military victory

- Those with plenty now have nothing/those with nothing now have plenty

- Those with many children/the one with none

- Those who are rich are made poor/those who are poor are made rich

- God brings unexpected death/makes alive or preserves one’s life

God is sovereign over all the affairs of all people.

IV. Hannah’s Preservation (2:9-10)

Hannah is confident in light of God’s faithfulness to answer her prayer that God will guard the feet of His saints. In other words, He keeps them secure and from stumbling. Regardless of a wicked man’s strength, if God is your protector, he cannot prevail, for God will act in swift judgment against those who will oppose His saints.

All of these points are areas where we can direct our prayers when we pray. A solid prayer life reflects a heart that has a solid theology. Hannah demonstrates she had a sound theology of who God was, what He did, and how He acted.

That should be our focus as well when we pray. Who God is and how He moves in His sovereignty should be the focus of our prayers.

Book Review

2011-12-08T05:40:00.000-08:00

God’s Battalions: A Case for the Crusades

Rodney Stark

Rodney Stark has written another thoroughly enjoyable study in the history of the Christian Church. His subject this time is the crusades, first launched at the end of the 11th century to free the Holy Land from Muslim control.

As with his previous books, Stark engages his reader with crisp writing and interesting research that makes his book hard to put down, especially if you are some one who loves reading history that is iconoclastic in nature, smashing down the p.c. idols of sneering, Christian-hating academics. Plus, his book is mercifully short, coming in right at 248 pages.

The primary focus with "God's Battalions" is two-fold. First, Stark interacts with modern, liberal revisionists of the crusades, like Karen Armstrong, who write of this period being horrible acts of violence perpetrated by cruel, imperialistic Westerners upon peaceful Muslims all in the name of Jesus. Then second, as Stark moves along debunking these myths, he provides the real story of the events framing the facts in an honest evaluation of what happened during those two centuries of crusading.

He begins his study centuries before the crusades even started; in the middle of the seventh century when after the death of Mohammed, Muslim armies expanded the Islamic empire beyond the Arabian peninsula. Arab Muslims pushed into areas like Persia, Egypt, and the Holy Land. Within 60 years they had made their way across North Africa and into Spain.

Stark describes what he calls "a great deal of nonsense" with what has been written about so-called Muslim tolerance of conquered people who are said to have been "treated with respect" under Muslim rule. The truth is quite different, and rather than being these jovial dictators wearing pointy shoes, Muslims often humiliated and punished Christians and Jews. Both were forbidden to build churches and synagogues and they had to wear distinguishing marks on their clothing lest a Muslim defile himself by accidently touching them. Moreover, they were prohibited from praying out loud so the Muslims could be protected from hearing them, and they were excessively taxed for being "non-Muslim."

He then recounts how Christendom struck back against Islamic aggressors. It began with the crushing Muslim defeat at Constantinople in 672, during which the legendary weapon "Greek fire" was employed to destroy the galleys of Muslim navies. The Battle of Tours is also highlighted, a game changing victory against the Muslims that is often downplayed by modern, p.c. historians as an insignificant event that has been exaggerated by the propaganda of the Franks and papacy. Far from being insignificant, the Battle of Tours was the one major battle that prevented Muslims from pushing into Western Europe and establishing a stronghold there.

Stark spends one chapter debunking the myth that the middle ages for Christendom were really a time of cultural backwardness that regressed into the "dark ages. "This is a malicious claim," says Stark "advanced by historians who write with an anti-Christian bias." (I am remind of a scene from Kevin Costner's version of Robin Hood in which Morgan Freeman's Muslim character constructs a crude telescope at the astonishment of the English.) One merely needs to contrast Western technological know-how with Islamic during this time in the areas of transportation, agriculture, and the military.

One little known reason why Western Christians were willing to risk so much crusading was to offer safe haven for pilgrims to the Holy Land. Just like evangelicals today tour the land of Israel, so too did post-apostolic Christians through Europe and North Africa, but for the religious opportunity to perform penance. Islam controlled the Holy Land and Christian pilgrims coming from the West were often set upon by Muslim raiders where they were often robbed of their possessions, or worse, kidnapped for slavery or even killed.

Stark discusses each of the major crusades and the events leading up to them, key figures who participated in them, and the aftermath of each one. Stark's account of the fourth crusade, that ended with the sacking of Constantinople, was of particular interest. It is the one crusade used as proof that crusaders were nothing more than greedy profiteers, filled with blood lust.

Stark cites Cambridge historian, Steven Runciman, who wrote six years after WW2 when the world had learned of the Nazi death camps and the extent of the Holocaust (and I would add the "raping" of Nanking by Japan) that, "There was never a greater crime against humanity than the Fourth Crusades." Can we say hyperbole?

Though modern, self-loathing Western p.c.academics point to the fourth crusade as a wicked Catholic atrocity against Orthodox believers, they ignore similar atrocities waged by Byzantines themselves against Westerners, especially the Orthodox brutalities against Latin Christians before the crusades even began, as well as the Byzantine treachery that occurred during each of the previous three crusades.

In the case of the fourth crusade, The deposed prince, Alexius, agreed to fund the crusade into Egypt if the crusaders first helped him reclaim his throne at Constantinople. They did, and after they secured it, he paid a few installments on his debt, but then ceased making payments. He then strengthened his defenses against the Western, crusading armies encamped around the walls of the city.

The crusaders, incensed by his treachery, launched an attack and quickly seized the city. Where as most p.c. accounts emphasize rape and murder of innocent civilians, such is an extreme exaggeration; the death toll was low. Emphasis should be placed upon the "sacking" of Constantinople. In other words, the crusaders looted the city of valuables, and knowing the history of cruel dishonesty the Byzantines showed the crusaders in the years prior to this "sacking," especially the first crusade, in a way, they had it coming.

Stark's book is a fascinating read, and if you are like me, and enjoy polemical writing meant to debunk leftist, historical revisionism, you'll enjoy it, too. The book has a decent bibliography, listing sources for further research. It lacks, however, an index, which I see as regrettable. It would have have been a positive inclusion in an otherwise outstanding book.

The Invisible Gardener

2011-12-07T06:20:00.000-08:00

Under this post, an atheist writes,

I suspect that any entity capable of creating universes is pretty much unknowable and incomprehensible. I'm certainly not going to say that such an entity can't or doesn't exist, but as to the details, to steal a line from Darwin, a dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.

I was reminded of a parable Anthony Flew liked to cite during his atheist days (who died renouncing his atheism, btw) about the invisible gardener.

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, 'Some gardener must tend this plot.' So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. 'But perhaps he is an invisible gardener.' So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Wells's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. 'But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.' At last the Skeptic despairs, 'But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?'

That led me to an essay by John Frame on God and Biblical Language and his comments therein upon the concept of falsification. I appreciate his masterful parable in response,

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. A man was there, pulling weeds, applying fertilizer, trimming branches. The man turned to the explorers and introduced himself as the royal gardener. One explorer shook his hand and exchanged pleasantries. The other ignored the gardener and turned away: “There can be no gardener in this part of the jungle,” he said; “this must be some trick. Someone is trying to discredit our previous findings.” They pitch camp. Every day the gardener arrives, tends the plot. Soon the plot is bursting with perfectly arranged blooms. “He's only doing it because we're here-to fool us into thinking this is a royal garden.” The gardener takes them to a royal palace, introduces the explorers to a score of officials who verify the gardener's status. Then the sceptic tries a last resort: “Our senses are deceiving us. There is no gardener, no blooms, no palace, no officials. It's still a hoax!” Finally the believer despairs: “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does this mirage, as you call it, differ from a real gardener?”

FBT Updates

2011-12-05T06:20:00.000-08:00

I have added three more messages to my series from Judges if anyone is interested.

Study in Judges

Children’s Illustrated Bible Faith

2011-12-01T06:40:00.001-08:00

In the comments under this post, I had an atheist explain to me with no uncertain terms just how out of touch with reality I truly am.

This happens to me every once in a while. I have an atheist favor me with a nice little pat on the head, a smile, and tell me that one of these days I’ll become a big boy, lay aside my children’s illustrated story Bible and see the real world for what it is.

Allow me to note some highlights for apologetic learning purposes.

Here's the bottom line. I grew up a Baptist church believing that Noah's Flood really happened. I believed all of it, and when I was young, I had no reason to doubt any of it. I would have been a much happier person if I could have continued to believe as I was taught, because certainty feels better than doubt.
But at a certain point, I just couldn't ignore the evidence provided by the physical world around me. At a certain point, it all just didn't make any sense any more. Not the flood, not eternal damnation, not the Trinity, none of it. I wish it did. I don't like doubt. My life would be easier without doubt. But life is what it is.

This admission says it all; it frames the rest of our discussion.

Here we have a guy growing up in a typical, red state, fundamentalist Baptist church. If it was the kind of Baptist church I attended, I have a lot in common with what he says here.

I could, without fail, tell you every week what the basic structure of the sermon would be. A three point message, lots of amusing, anecdotal Southern humor sprinkled throughout, and an emotional illustration, all wrapped up with a long invitation at the end.

Sunday school was based upon the denominational quarterlies that are designed to rush the class through the entire Bible in three years. Sunday school teachers were nice folks. Heck, my aunt taught my Jr. church and I had a cousin teach our teen class. But honestly, in spite of their sweet Christian piety, they lacked any serious sophistication to answer any hard questions I would put to them regarding any of the things I heard at school that challenged my faith.

So I could say my background is the same as the atheist's here.

However, he seriously thinks I still remain in a carpeted game room and derive my theology from flannel boards. All through high school and college, I was exposed to the same evidence provided by the same physical world taught to me by stern, dogmatic professors who told me my Bible was a fairytale.

Why then doesn't any of that so-called evidence shatter my faith? Am I not reading the right peer-reviewed journals? Not reading the right books? To borrow an illustration from another atheist, I live on the same pale, blue dot. How come I don’t see stuff like he does?

Atheists carry on as if I would read just the same stuff they did, I wouldn't be a Christian any longer. But I have read their stuff, and here I still sit, believing in historicity of Noah's ark, the flood, and Jesus. I don't doubt any of it and it all makes sense to me.

Has it occurred to my atheist commenter that evidence really has nothing to do with my beliefs? Evidence has to be interpreted, any ways, and the starting point on which one evaluates and filters the evidence will obviously impact what one concludes about that evidence.

I begin with the fear of the Lord. I grant that my "fear" is supernatural and undebatable in peer-review journals. In other words, my faith is a work of divine grace that gives me ears to hear and eyes to see. I would venture a guess that his doubts have nothing really to do with overwhelming evidence and everything to do with disappointments with God, the lack of respect he has toward his religious family growing up, and deep respect he has now for his new found atheist community.

So, now you have to turn to an argument that leads to the conclusion that we can’t draw conclusions about anything. You have a bias, I have a bias, so all we have in the end are our opinions. I reject your conclusion because you’re biased. You reject my opinions because I’m biased. What’s the point? This is not very helpful, and I don’t understand why YEC folks always go for the “no one is unbiased” argument.

Here again is an example of how atheists, particularly young 20 somethings that are fresh from their former life as a Fundamentalist, often do not self-reflect upon their presuppositions.

They naively flit through the world thinking all the evidence it has to offer is self-authenticating and that he now knows the truth because he had the smarts to remove his "God delusion" blinders to see things as they truly are. Rarely do they recognize that a person filters his "opinions" through a set of personal presuppositions.

Let me point out some selected comments to illustrate what I mean.

I think that I’ve done far more reading than you realize.

Oh. I'm sure he has. Of course, if you’re only reading atheist propaganda, I'm not sure how that helps your case.

I don’t think that I’m that far off base when I say that it is the consensus of practicing ANE archeologists that much of the early history of the OT is contradicted by the archeological evidence. Is there any reason to think that this is not an accurate summary of the current state of ANE archeology?
But hey, give me some sources, and I’ll look into it. I've changed my mind about things many times in life. Have you? By the way, do you have anything that is published in peer-reviewed, mainstream journal?

I often wonder if all the young, internet atheists these days utilize the same play book when they engage their religious opponents. Apparently, this play book is encyclopedic, because it covers a wide range of subjects like ancient Near Eastern studies, geology, biology, and biblical lexicography, all in scrutinizing detail. And on top of that, it makes the atheist an instance expert.

Either that, or all atheists are idiot savant "Rainman" types incapable of forgetting anything.

But to the point at hand. Here's a good example of where those presuppositions come into play. I can give a rather extensive list of scholars and authors who would disagree with the assessment that ANE studies devastates the OT. For example, Noel Weeks, Michael Grisanti, Eugene Merrill, Andrew Steinman, K.A. Kitchen, Leon Wood, E.J. Young, Mark Rooker, Daniel Block, Bryant Wood, Charles Ailing, Doug Petrovich, James Hoffmeier, John Currid, to name a few.

All of them are published in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals, if the mainstream, theological and archaeological journals count for the atheist. Of course, that is the rub. He has his list of so-called peer-reviewed journals he accepts as authoritative. If the ones in which these men publish don't fit his criteria, they'll be dismissed out of hand without any consideration.

Additionally, he believes his peer-reviewed journals are unbiased, have no particular interest in religion one way or another, and thus no agenda to promote. They see the evidence for what it is and conclude the Bible isn't truthful in these regards. But this just reveals more self-delusion.

No, it doesn’t “just happen”. If it happens, it’s because of the way the natural world happens to work. “Self-organizing biochemical reactions” happen all of the time. What makes the scientific study of abiogenesis different is that it’s testable. As you would say, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Atheists, like my commenter, are so desperate to ignore any "evidence" of purposeful design, or dare I say “creation,” that they are willing to embrace the absurd and ridiculous "science of the gaps" type arguments.

Abiogenesis is a good example. I wonder if my commenter even knows what I mean here, because abiogenesis is life from non-life. "Self-organizing biochemical reactions" may happen "all the time;" hydrogen, for example, bonds with oxygen to make water. But none of these “chemical bonds” can produce the diverse, genetic driven, intelligent life that we see fill our world today. Chemical bonds don’t produce information: lots of complex information that causes the organisms to thrive, live, and adapt.

Of course, many folks have written on this subject. Stephen Myer, for instance, has a massive, 500 plus page book called “The Signature in the Cell.” Does it count? Probably not if the atheist can find a consensus of ID haters to say it doesn’t. It’s situations like these that free-thinkers appeal to consensus to determine truth rather than evidence.

But what about atheists who have problems with Darwinianism’s explanation of life? Do they count? Are they just going rogue for the sake of going rogue? Do they “know what they are talking about?”

What puzzles me is why folks tend to bristle a bit when someone says that the Noah story isn’t feasible. Why should young earthers or literalist care if it’s feasible? What’s the point of even trying to demonstrate that any aspect of the story is feasible? I don’t get it. Why is there a need for a long drawn out response when Mr. Atheist says you must believe the following amazing things? Just embrace the fantastic!

I can appreciate that comment. There is a kernel of truth in it. Is the biblical record authenticated by peer-reviewed engineering journals on the feasibility of the ark? No. I would say the same about the Resurrection. Do we need to have a testable situation in which we can scientifically determine through peer-reviewed journals if a corpse can come to life and thus prove the veracity of the Gospel narratives? Of course not.

However, the ark, as it is revealed in Scripture, is feasible. A number of ancient wooden ships match it closely in size, so there is no particular structural problem, and those ships were designed to be sailed repeatedly rather than utilized once. Moreover, the Bible doesn’t record specific designs for the ark. It just records the dimensions and how many decks it is to have. Nothing about how the structural integrity would be achieved. It’s just assumed by my atheist commenter that Noah was a primitive, stupid man limited by the pre-bronze age world or whatever. Thus, unless he had modern day technology, he couldn’t achieve what God asked him to do.

I am of the mind that if God asked him to do something, he had the ability to achieve what God asked. We may not know exactly how that was done, but of course, my atheist commenter has the same problem with the origins of life.

Look, I understand that you believe what you believe, and there is nothing that I can say to change it. But the vast, vast majority of Christian geologists think that the geological evidence contradicts the global flood hypothesis. Perhaps you should ask the question…why do they think this? Why have the vast, vast majority of CHRISTIAN geologists come to the conclusion that geology is devastating to a literal OT and the flood myth?

Wow. Not just one “vast,” but two. All of those Christian geologists? Can he name some? I happen to know a few. One in particular who has written for Biologos and is an evangelist AGAINST biblical creationism. He has written to me on numerous occasions. Has begged my boss to let him come to my church and straighten out us poor, misguided Christians who have been lied to by Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis (his words, not mine).

I only assume if my geological anti-creationist claims to be a Christian that he believes some particular things about Scripture. He has told me he does, for instance, believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, something my atheist commenter denies. Yet when I press my geological antagonist on the particulars of his doctrine, he falls back upon “I don’t know” and points me to the websites of apostates and other similar miscreants who basically argue like the atheist commenter.

I would venture a guess and say the main reason “Christian” geologists say the OT flood narrative is “devastated” by the so-called evidence has more to do with how they have been taught to do geology, rather than just raw evidence. Geology is a fairly young discipline and it was initially based upon a set of uniformitarian principles the geologist was expected to utilize when doing research. Those principles can be challenged, as is demonstrated in this article and this article. (Which happens to be in a peer-reviewed journal).

The Gay Oriented Associate Pastor

2011-11-30T10:50:00.000-08:00

Comments are worth the read as well.

How to Respond to an Associate Pastor who Confesses to Homosexual Orientation

The Paulding Lights

2011-11-30T05:45:00.000-08:00

I just love this sort of stuff.

Defending Premillennialism [8]

2011-11-28T07:20:00.000-08:00

The Covenant Reformed Understanding of Israel’s Land Promises

Allow me to re-introduce my readers to a study I left off last fall. A couple of years ago I began a series of posts examining eschatology. They flowed out of some personal reading I was doing on the subject. Once I had finished a general overview of the main systems and the theological issues pertaining to those systems, I then moved to specifically defending premillennialism as it interfaces with amillennialism and postmillennialism.

In my previous articles (which can be read HERE if anyone wishes to “catch up”), I began by noting that the heart of disagreement between premillennialism and amillennialism/postmillennialism centered upon the hermeneutics one utilizes in the discussions. I would like to revisit that disagreement in the future sometime, but as I reboot my study, I believe a better way to explore hermeneutical distinctions would be to examine specific theological points and individual prophetic passages. I began to look at passages before I left off, but I didn’t quite get into what I wanted to study. So, I’ll switch gears a bit, and begin by addressing the land promises made to Israel.

Anyone who gives just a cursory review of the theological literature recognizes the non-premillennial, Reformed covenant position on the land promises to Israel is sharply distinct from the typical premillennial, Dispensational position. Whereas the premillennial position understands the land promises God made to Israel have not been ultimately fulfilled and will be so at the coming of Christ when He establishes an earthly, geo-political kingdom whose government is centered in Israel; non-premillennialists, for the most part, agree those promises were fulfilled according to the terms of the Mosaic covenant in as much as Israel obeyed God, but that they are ultimately typological, pointing to a greater promise fulfilled in the universality of the Christian church and the eternal state of the new heavens and new earth.

So as we consider what the Bible says about the land promises initially given to Abram in Genesis, and reiterated to his descendants throughout the book of Genesis and the remainder of the OT, we can ask some questions about those promises. For example, have the land promises been fulfilled? Will the Jews be restored to the Promised Land? How exactly are those land promises fulfilled? Does the land promises entail physical, geo-political territory?

But before I dive into my study defending the premillennial perspective, it may be helpful to sketch out the basic Reformed covenant view of the land promises. Their view can be outlined according to 5 broad headings:

The NT Church is understood to be the “New Israel.”

The Reformed covenant position recognizes a strict continuity between the OT people of God, Israel, and the NT people of God, the Church, the Body of Christ. According to Romans 4:11, 12 and Galatians 3:15-29, Christians are considered the true spiritual seed of Abraham. Reformed writers, Crenshaw and Gunn state,

Paul argues in Galatians 3 that God intentionally used seed as a collective noun that has both a singular and plural reference so that the singular reference could refer to Christ and the plural reference could refer to those who are in Christ. Paul’s point is that the Abrahamic promises were made to Abraham and to his seed (vs. 16), that the seed of Abraham is Christ (vs. 16) and all who are in Christ (vs. 29), and that therefore the promise given to Abraham belongs to all who are in Christ (vs. 29), … When Paul was explaining the Old Testament promise that belongs to the Christian, he was referring specifically to the land promise … [Crenshaw and Gunn, 234, 235]

There comment builds upon John Calvin’s views of these passages, who wrote,

In a word, he gives the appellation of the Israel of God to those whom he formally denominated the children of Abraham by faith (Gal. 3:29), and thus includes all believers, whether Jews or gentiles, who were united into one Church. [Calvin, 186]

Thus, it is understood then, that the Church is the new community of the people of God. O Palmer Robertson writes,

…Paul declares that the “new creation”– the new community within humanity brought into existence by the cross of Christ in its uniting of Jews and Gentiles into one new people of God – is the community that may be designated as “the Israel of God.” [Robertson, 43]

Again, Crenshaw and Gunn state,

In Reformed interpretation, the land-inheriting seed of Abraham are defined not strictly in terms of racial descent but in terms of a continuing covenant community [Crenshaw and Gunn, 233].

The Promises made by God that Israel will occupy the land is said to have been fulfilled

For example, consider these passages:

Joshua 21:43-45

43 So the LORD gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it.
44 The LORD gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45 Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.

1 Kings 4:21

So Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.

1 Kings 8:56

"Blessed be the LORD, who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all that He promised. There has not failed one word of all His good promise, which He promised through His servant Moses.

Nehemiah 9:7-8

7 "You are the LORD God, Who chose Abram, And brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans, And gave him the name Abraham;
8 You found his heart faithful before You, And made a covenant with him To give the land of the Canaanites, The Hittites, the Amorites, The Perizzites, the Jebusites, And the Girgashites-- To give it to his descendants. You have performed Your words, For You are righteous.

Patrick Fairbairn sums up what these passages say by writing,

The occupation of the earthly Canaan by the natural seed of Abraham was a type, and no more than a type, of this occupation by a redeemed Church of her destined inheritance of glory; and consequently everything concerning the entrance of the former on their temporary possessions, was ordered so as to represent and foreshadow the things which belong to the Church’s establishment in her permanent possession [Fairbairn, 1:359]

The land promises were conditioned upon Israel’s obedience to God’s covenant

In Deuteronomy 28, 29, God told Israel before they entered the land that their blessing in the land would be contingent upon them obeying the terms of the covenant God made with them. If not, then they would come under judgment to the point that if they persisted in their disobedience, God would send foreign nations to drive them out. The book of Judges, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles records this very thing happening. Israel’s rejection of Jesus only solidified this judgment and they were permanently removed from the land in 70 AD.

Gary Burge writes in regards to Israel’s disobedience and the land,

The connection between covenant fidelity and the promise of land is evident throughout the Torah. Possessing the land was contingent on Israel’s consistently living by God’s righteous standards… Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy warn Israel about righteousness and the land in dramatic terms. In fact, the images are shocking! If Israel does not obey God’s laws, then the land itself will vomit the nation out. [Burge, 61, 62]

See also Jon Zen’s article, Today’s Israel: Is God on her side.

The greater fulfillment of the land promises is the entire earth, the world, or the “cosmos.”

Reformed believers understand that the land promises have their greatest fulfillment in the entire earth. In other words, God’s promises were not just given to one ethnic group of people centered in the physical borders of Israel. Rather, they are made to the whole of God’s people, both in the OT and NT who will inherit the entire earth.

Crenshaw and Gunn write,

… The ultimate fulfillment of the land promise involves the whole world and not just Palestine. Notice what Paul said in Romans 4:13: “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world (kosmos) was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”… We know that the Abrahamic land promise ultimately refers to the whole world (Romans 4:13). Adam was originally given dominion over the whole world (Genesis 1:26-28). This inheritance was lost in the fall and Satan became the prince of this world… Through His resurrection-ascension, Christ has received all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Christ, from His heavenly throne, is today fulfilling Psalm 2… Even as God gave Palestine to Israel under Joshua and told them to conquer it, so God has given the nations to new covenant Israel under Jesus and has told us to disciple them. [Crenshaw and Gunn, 241, 242, 243]

The People of God await a heavenly land and a heavenly Jerusalem. Their hope is not upon physical, geographic territory in the Middle-East.

The last two chapters of Revelation make it abundantly clear that the hope of God’s people is in a new heaven and a new earth dwelling with God in a New Jerusalem. These images speak volumes as to where the believers will dwell. The land promises were mere shadows and types of God’s greatest promise.

Robertson notes,

The possession of the land under the old covenant was not an end in itself, but fit instead among the shadows, types, and prophecies that were characteristic of the old covenant in its presentation of redemptive truth… Abraham received the promise of the land but never experienced the blessing of its full possession. In this way, the patriarch learned to look forward to “the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God (Heb. 11:10).”

For those who would like to have a bit more on the Reformed perspective about the land than what I just touch on here, check out Bob Hayton’s lay-level overview of the land promises in a series of articles he wrote up for his blog: Understanding the Land Promises.

_________

Sources

Gary Burge, Who are God’s People in the Middle-East

John Calvin, Commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians

Curtis Crenshaw and Grover Gunn, Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow

Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture

O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

Hermeneutic Studies

2011-11-26T20:45:00.000-08:00

Michael Vlach on The NT use of the OT

"Innocent Couples"

2011-11-23T05:10:00.000-08:00

I don't know what that Carlsberg is, but I want some.

Dear Jamin,

2011-11-22T05:50:00.001-08:00

Jamin Hubner offers his advice to a fan.

Apparently, a tender soul stumbled across some disturbing information that contradicts Jamin's anti-Dispensational meta-narrative.

He asks,

Hey Jamin,

I have recently wanted to become more familiar with the subject of dispensationalism vs. covenant theology. I am currently reading Dispensationalism by Ryrie and have Michael Horton's book on Covenant Theology (if you have a better recommendation I will purchase it). As I am downloading your lectures on apologetics, I decided to check for articles on this topic and came across your article Where Dispensationalism Came From. In Ryrie's book he mentions the dispensational scheme that Jonathan Edwards (not that Edwards was necessarily a dispensationalist) put forth in his work "A Compleat History or Survey of All the Dispensations". Would this not pre-date Darby? As I have not read this work by Edwards, perhaps I am missing the context, but Edwards' dispensational scheme has some similarities to the seven dispensations espoused by modern day dispensationalists.

In response to this specific question, Jamin replies,

Dispensationalists typically play the pre-Darby card in an effort to justify their system, but is rarely an adequate appeal. The idea is to make associations and draw similarities between Darby and previous thinkers (e.g. Ireneaus, Edwards, some Reformers, etc.) to say Dispensationalism goes back (for some, they would say to the Apostles, while others would say back to the Reformers, etc.). But in reality, the thinkers are simply not teaching Darbyism. Resemblances, vague parallels and similarities are not enough to dismount Darby as essentially the Father of Dispensationalism (nor dismount Scofield as perhaps the chief popularizer). But that's not to say we shouldn't acknowledge that Darby had previous influences and that attempts have been made to try and systematize redemptive history, address the application of biblical law, and solve various hermeneutical issues. Certainly there have been such attempts.

Yes Edwards pre-dates Darby (Edwards died in 1758, Darby in 1882). Edwards talked about dispensations - as did about any non-dispensational theologian during the Reformation to Modern Age.

Jamin is one of those YRR guys who counts himself liberated from the shackles of fundamentalist Dispensationalism. Like many of his youthful "born-again" Reformed ilk blogging these days, he tosses out the bath water with the baby.

It isn't that he was just taught wrongly about Dispensationalism. It is that Dispensationalism is cultic heresy of the rankest order that must be destroyed. Of course, Jamin doesn't necessarily speak against Dispensationalism with such warlike "take-no-prisoners" language. Rather, he paints Dispensational adherents as a bunch of biblically illiterate dullards enslaved to their traditions.

One of the theological urban myths Jamin has latched onto is the idea that Dispensationalism is erroneous because it has its origins with J.N. Darby in the 1800s. This can be a rather problematic claim, especially if it can be shown there were pastors and theologians who held to Dispensational ideas who predate Darby.

Additionally, Jamin thinks Covenant Theology has a "trail of blood" like lineage that can be traced all the way back to the Apostles. This of course is wishful historical revisionism and should be beneath a guy who hosts a so-called peer-reviewed theological journal.

I'll consider three problems with Jamin's response.

First, the historical reality is that Covenant Theology, as an organized theological system, is really just a couple of hundred years older than Dispensationalism, so one can say it is just as "new." The modern form had it's beginnings with the emergence of Calvinism. Dutch theologian, Johannes Cocceius, is often designated as the founder of Covenant Theology, publishing his work on Federalism in 1648 after the WCF was hammered out. He is basically the "Darby" of his day.

Additionally, even though there may had been first generation Reformers who laid some ground work for CT, like Caspar Olevianus and Zacharius Ursinus, it was the second, third, and even later generations of Reformers like William Ames and Hermann Witsius who began developing Covenant Theology as we know it today, as they built upon Cocceius's previous work.

And if we are gonna get a bit closer to home for Jamin, Reformed Baptist articulation of CT came nearly 100 years or more after the credo-Reformed articulation.

Secondly, Jamin is just as guilty of playing a "pre-Darby" card, or a "pre-Cocceius" card, and he is mistaken about that card. While it is true certain seed elements of Covenant Theology were written about by pre-Reformed theologians, it is just as true certain seed elements of Dispensationalism was mentioned by similar writers, if not, in some cases, the exact same writers.

Ryrie devotes an entire chapter to this, but Jamin, and his inquirer, over look it. Moreover, Jamin also misrepresents what Ryrie says on this matter. Even Ryrie is aware of over eager Dispensationalists who exaggerate the pre-Darby historical evidence. He writes,

The first strawman is to say that dispensationalists assert that the system was taught in postapostolic times. Informed dispensationalists do not claim that. They recognize that, as a system, dispensationalism was largely formulated by Darby, but the outlines of a dispensationalist approach to the Scriptures are found much earlier. They only maintain that certain features of what eventually developed into dispensationalism are found in the teachings of the early church. [Ryrie, 62].

We can say the same thing about Covenant Theology.

And then third, I am made to wonder if Jamin has even seriously read Ryrie's book or just merely second or third hand critiques of it. If he has, he didn't read closely, nor does his inquirer, because the "John Edwards" they mention is not the Jonathan Edwards most people know who preached "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and was instrumental in the First Great Awakening as Jamin suggests.

The John Edwards in question, as far as Ryrie is concerned, was a Calvinistic minister in the Church of England who lived from 1637 to 1716. He published two volumes entitled A Compleat History or Survey of All the Dispensations, and as Ryrie states, the purpose of his books was "to display all the Transactions of Divine Providence relating to the Methods of Religion, from the Creation to the end of the World, from the first chapter of Genesis to the last of the Revelation." [Ryrie, 66].

In order to keep this anonymous inquirer from being grossly ill-informed on the matters of Dispensational theology, I would refer him to my post highlighting some essential works in Dispensational thinking. Though Ryrie is an obvious choice with understanding background material, there are others who can also offer a fuller perspective on these matters.

Vintage Hip and Thigh

2011-11-21T06:20:00.000-08:00

Squirrel asked in the comments of my last post whether or not the atheist I responded to ever got back to me. I remember he did, and of course he was none too happy with me for my snarky response to him, but I forgot that I did write a follow-up post answering his claims. I though I would digitally re-master it and post it as well.

____________

12 Angry Statements

The other day I posted an article describing how I have incurred the rage of an angry and bitter anti-Christian. My antagonist initially emailed me to present 12 dogmatic statements he claims I cannot answer IF I affirm the inerrancy of God's Word.
My original response was a spoof played off the fact that all of his objections have been soundly answered by better men than myself. If he doesn't like the responses to his statements others have already provided, then he will certainly not accept mine.

That being stated, in order to prevent my emailer from gloating, I will respond to these statements to demonstrate how easily answered they are.
His original comments will be in Arial Bold.

To believe your bible in any translation(or original manuscripts) is inerrant & god breathed, here is what you must believe.
#1.A snake can talk(remember the snake was cursed to crawl on it's belly & eat dust.
#2.A donkey can talk.
#9.You have to believe god made the sun stand still when it already stands still or believe god stopped the rotation of the earth which anyone should know would be a disaster in many ways for earth.
#10.You have to believe Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt which is unbelievable.

I took these set of statements out of sequence because they generally deal with miraculous interventions and extraordinary acts of providence by God. Biblio-skeptics tend to ignore the fact that the Bible presupposes the existence of God who has directly intervened in human history past.

Because the writers of the Bible treat their writing as an historical record of God's divine dealings with humanity, particularly God's redeemed people, I would only expect to read about extraordinary acts of God. In fact, if the Bible claimed to be a book recording the revelation of the divine, sovereign creator, yet contained no miraculous works by that creator in order to establish His divinity, then wouldn't it raise suspicion in the minds of its critics? Yet, my antagonist would just as easily hammer that point as a means of mockery.

The Bible claims to be a supernatural book with its source in the mind of our Creator. I expect it to tell of supernatural events. Why is that hard to believe unless you are unwilling to submit to the Creator who produced those supernatural events?

Looking at each point in turn.

#1 - First, the Bible says it was a serpent. The text is unclear as to what sort of animal that was. The idea of a snake is from the modern day and my antagonist is reading the concept of a modern day python back on to the text. Second, the serpent was satanically controlled. Third, it was cursed AFTER it talked, not before. And fourth, this was an unique, one time event never to be repeated.

#2 - Similar points apply with Balaam's donkey as with the snake. The Angel of the LORD was present when the donkey talked, even giving it the ability to rebuke Balaam.

#9 - Again, similar points apply as with #1 and #2. This was a one time event of extraordinary providence. If our Creator can create His world, He certainly can protect it from disaster when He reveals Himself in a miraculous, cosmological display, so as to deliver His people and bring a crushing blow against their enemies.

#10 - There were supernatural events that took place in the historical past which show forth God's character as revealed in judgment, wrath, and even mercy. Additionally, the description being recorded here may be a metaphorical description explaining how Lot's wife was merely destroyed in the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah because she tarried behind Lot. The text is not clear how far behind she may had been. Because she refused to take seriously the warnings of judgment delivered by the angels, she was overcome in the cities' destruction.

#3.That man was so stupid back then that he actually thought he could build a tower to heaven.

Nothing in the text suggests they were building a physical tower into heaven. The text says the people acted as one in rebellion to what God had commanded when he told humanity after the flood to spread over the earth. Instead, they worked together to build a great city with a tower with its top in the heavens. Basically a grand skyscraper probably constructed for the worship of false gods. There is nothing stupid about this given the fact the similar relics of ancient societies still exist today like the pyramids.

#4.You have to believe against any logical thinking that all those animals,incl,snakes & all different kinds of insects and enough food to feed all of them(different kinds of food)for almost one year would fit on an ark that size,which is impossible.
#5.You have to believe there was food for them to eat when they came off the ark even though the whole earth was supposedly covered in water.

The subject of the ark's dynamics and physical feasibility to accomplish what it did according to the biblical record of Genesis 6-8 is vast. There have been countless studies done and papers/books written demonstrating that the ark could carry all the animal kinds (not the entire species we see today), as well as enough food to feed them for a year. This statement is made from a position of scholarly ignorance by a person who is a anti-Christian bigot.

Interestingly, the T-bloggers recently wrote a lengthy critique of an anti-creationist book written by a similar religious bigot who mocks the historical record of the ark. There are also additional citations in response to like-minded critics in the footnotes.
Answers in Genesis also lists a plethora of articles detailing the physical reality of Noah's global flood and the feasibility of the ark.

Before moving on, I should note that my emailing antagonist told me in writing that he dismisses anything posted at AiG's website. "They're mind-controlled" so he claims and thus are unreliable. That's how an atheist/biblio-skeptic shores up his ignorance, by automatically poisoning anything his critics and opponents write. So much for free thinking and doing your homework and all.

#6.You have to believe in a flat earth because these supposedly inspired by god people said so back then.

Nothing in the biblical record suggest the earth is flat. This is anti-biblical urban myth.

#7.You have to believe the earth is 6 to 10,000 years old despite overwhelming proof it is much,much older,even if not 4.5 billion years old.

And what exactly is that overwhelming proof? The variety of radioactive dating methods are wildly inconsistent with each other when tested on just one sample. Moreover, dating methods are subject to speculative interpretations, interpretations that are driven by particular presuppositions, in this case naturalistic uniformitarianism.

Again, AiG has a list of technical articles dealing with this issue, but remember, most skeptics refuse to interact with the data and information, but instead choose to attack ad hominem straw men versions of their critics whom they do not respect.

#8.You have to believe all those heavenly bodies out there that they are still finding were created in one literal day(morning & evening)that is despite the fact that even now they are finding suns,stars just now begining [sic] to form.

Usually the person who makes statements invoking the authority of modern day evolutionary cosmology are generally ignorant of the problems inherent to modern day evolutionary cosmology. He is also blissfully unaware of the in-fighting that exists between the proponents of various theories and models that are dreamed up to help explain away those problems.

For example, note the contradiction in his original statement. In #7 he speaks about the earth being 4.5 billion years old. The so-called billions of light years (a "light year" being a measure of distance, not time, by the way) are considered one of the reasons we believe in an old universe. However, in #8, my emailer suggests one solar day is way too short a time for suns and stars to form, especially now that we are finding stars just beginning to form. OK, how exactly would we see their light if they are just now beginning to form?

Discover magazine did an article on the youthful galaxies located by the Galex telescope that are 2 to 4 billion light years from earth, but began forming just 1 billion light years ago according to the telescope observations. In the March 2006 issue, a thoughtful reader wrote a letter to the editor expressing curiosity as to how we could even see their light? He writes,

"If the youthful galaxies located by the Galex telescope are 2 billion to 4 billion light-years from Earth but started forming less than 1 billion years ago, how can they be observed at all?"

In other words, it should have taken the light from these 1-billion-year-old galaxies 2 to 4 billion years to reach us. The editors at Discover responded thus:

Your question cuts right to one of the trickiest problems in cosmology: how to refer to the timing of events when there are many different ways to describe them. The conventional solution is to describe everything from the way we perceive it. In this case, that means that when we say that the galaxies started forming less than a billion years ago, we mean that the galaxies AS WE SEE THEM TODAY appear to have started forming less than a billion years ago. Put another way, when their light started heading toward Earth 2 billion to 4 billion years ago, these objects were less than a billion years old. That convention may seem confusing, but the alternatives are even more puzzling. For instance, it would be more comprehensive to say that these galaxies, located 2 billion to 4 billion light-years from Earth, appear to have begun forming less than 3 billion to 5 billion years ago, and then their light spent 2 billion to 4 billion years traveling toward us. More comprehensive, yes, but even harder to follow!

In other words, its a mystery that doesn't fit into the prescribe view of evolutionary cosmologists.

For my antagonist emailer, its easy for him to make fun of a biblical description of creation than deal with real problems of cosmology.

#11.You have to believe Lot had intercourse with 2 of his daughters on 2 different nights and knew it not.

This comment is strange. The text clearly states he was drunk out of his mind and unaware of what happened. Why is that hard to believe? Such things happen in Las Vegas all the time between total strangers.

#12.You have to believe Jesus was concieved [sic] without human intercourse this despite the fact that at least 20 other dying & resurrecting savior sun gods had this claimed of them long,long before the supposed time of Jesus,you claim them a myth but the same tale about Jesus true.

This is a woefully ignorant exaggeration of historical fact. In all of my private email interchanges with my antagonist, he always returned to cut-and-pasted articles from non-scholarly, atheistic websites that try desperately to tie Jesus to some ancient myth. Mithra is the favorite these days.

J.P. Holding of Tektonics has done some extensive research debunking these claims, even interacting with the world's literary experts on these various myths who also deny the connection between the alleged myth and the historical Jesus.

By the way, just like he rejects AiG out of hand, my emailing antagonist also rejects J.P. Holding because, a) "J.P." still goes by the alias he gave himself for security reasons when he worked with hardcore criminals in the state penitentiary where he was employed, and b) he was too mean and direct with my emailer when he was hassling him. Once again, such self-imposed blindness only reveals a heart angry at the God of scripture and who truly doesn't care for the truth.

So there you have it. I responded to each one of his charges and none of them disprove the inerrancy of the Bible. All we have are baseless charges just like they were asked decades ago, but have once again been proven wrong.

Vintage Hip and Thigh

2011-11-18T00:40:00.000-08:00

As I cobble together my longer posts for my next study, I ran across this from the archives back in 2007. I present it again, slightly updated.

___________________

Thank You Mr. Atheist for Your Loving Concern

From the Email In-box:

To: fred@fredsbibletalk.com
From: *****
Subject: RE: [QUAR][Barracuda] Bible inerrant

Fred,
I accidently ran into your internet site and read your article about an inerrant Bible.I won't go into the area of screwed up translations.I will copy and paste some of your statements and comment on them. Paste from your site: Anything He does will be untainted with error, and because He has breathed out scripture, the scripture is then tied to His purity and holiness and can correctly said to be inerrant.

From me>>To believe your bible in any translation(or original manuscripts) is inerrant & god breathed, here is what you must believe.
#1.A snake can talk(remember the snake was cursed to crawl on it's belly & eat dust.
#2.A donkey can talk.
#3.That man was so stupid back then that he actually thought he could build a tower to heaven.
#4.You have to believe against any logical thinking that all those animals,incl,snakes & all different kinds of insects and enough food to feed all of them(different kinds of food)for almost one year would fit on an ark that size,which is impossible.
#5.You have to believe there was food for them to eat when they came off the ark even though the whole earth was supposedly covered in water.
#6.You have to believe in a flat earth because these supposedly inspired by god people said so back then.
#7.You have to believe the earth is 6 to 10,000 years old despite overwhelming proof it is much,much older,even if not 4.5 billion years old.
#8.You have to believe all those heavenly bodies out there that they are still finding were created in one literal day(morning & evening)that is despite the fact that even now they are finding suns,stars just now begining [sic] to form.
#9.You have to believe god made the sun stand still when it already stands still or believe god stopped the rotation of the earth which anyone should know would be a disaster in many ways for earth.
#10.You have to believe Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt which is unbelievable.
#11.You have to believe Lot had intercourse with 2 of his daughters on 2 different nights and knew it not.
#12.You have to believe Jesus was concieved [sic] without human intercourse this despite the fact that at least 20 other dying & resurrecting savior sun gods had this claimed of them long,long before the supposed time of Jesus,you claim them a myth but the same tale about Jesus true.
I could go on about the impossibilities you claim to be inerrant in your bible.The names of authors of the whole Bible is unknown the names claimed to be the writters [sic] was guessed at by Hebrews(O.T.) and Christians(N.T.)no one ZERO knows who wrote one word in the bible.Only a brainwashed,mind controlled christian [sic] could ever believe the Bible inerrant,it's to obvious that it is not for any thinking person.

Greetings ____,

I want you to know how much I appreciated your email. I was touched by the fact you took the time to express to me your concerns in writing.

Honestly, I am a rather obscure and unknown internet presence with a small time website and a blog that maybe gets 200 visits a day, half of which are people looking for joint pain medication. I am no where in the league of a James White, or Steve Hays, or Dan Phillips, or the guys at Answers in Genesis, or even that pseudonymous J.P Holding guy. In the grand scheme of things, I am a guppy in a big, big pond of much larger, more significant fish.

Yet you thought enough of me – someone who is a total stranger to you – to become a mentor of sorts and help straighten me out. Most atheists are not even as considerate as you, but instead lace their correspondence with rude, insulting remarks and scurrilous comments meant only to ridicule and tear me down.

You far exceed the hacks from the Rational Response Squad. That is what I particularly like about your email. It contains none of the snarky arrogance common place among atheists. You even took the time to list some examples where you believe I have intellectually derailed.

First off, I must confess my overall dismay. Your email really shook me up. I mean, in the entire 2,000 years of church history since apologists have been answering critics with their polemics, I don't believe I have read any biblio-skeptic offer the examples you provide here. You must be praised for originality and freshness with your criticisms. And regrettably, I haven't read a Christian book attempting to answer them.

Take a few of the Bible verses you pointed out. You mean to tell me what I learned in 3rd grade Sunday school class,via a felt board, that the Tower of Babel is wrong? You mean to say it wasn’t just a large temple? That the expression "whose top reached to the heavens" is telling me this was a mythical story describing a structure designed to take men into heaven itself? Into outer-space? Like a giant space elevator or something? Yes, I guess I can see how that is a bit silly. What a face-palm.

Oh, and to think I just presupposed the fact that since God is God, then miraculous, one time events like a talking snake, or a talking donkey, or Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt (assuming the expression is not a way of saying she died in the judgment of sulfur and brimstone) could be expected to happen.

Gosh, I had no idea I was suppose to look at all reality only through material naturalistic uniformitarianism as a philosophical filter. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Also, I must how gladdened I am that your email was devoid of any phony, educated condescending huff and puff. Many atheists I have encountered in the past carry on with their criticisms about the reliability of the biblical text as if they have genuinely studied textual criticism, but in reality, they are ignorantly repeating 3rd, maybe 4th hand sources as they type away in their mother's basement.

But you are different.

You seem to draw from a deep well of information and personal experience when you point out any belief in the inerrancy of scripture has zero evidence and no thinking person would adhere to such a belief. Golly, I have only been studying the Bible for nearly 20 years, a good half of that time at a seminary. I learned just two years of Greek and a year and a half of Hebrew. You must have really studied those languages, like, a whole lot. How long have you been a student of textual criticism and the original languages? I envy your expertise.

I'm guessing now, since reading your email, that I have wasted my time heavily immersing myself in the critical studies of many of the textual scholars the world has mistakenly labeled “brilliant.” Men like Constantine Von Tischendorf, Johann Bengel, Robert Dick Wilson, E.J. Young, D.A. Carson and Daniel Wallace, a man who actually handles and documents the original texts often under consideration when we speak of inerrancy.

These guys all claim the historical documents are overwhelmingly trustworthy and reliable and provide for us an almost 100 percent accuracy when it comes to the veracity of the biblical text. Yet in reality, as you point out, these men are nothing but a bunch of bunko artists. I’ve been duped. You can imagine how shaken of soul I am since considering your email.

I reckon the same goes for biblical creationism. How you have found the time to not only be an expert in biblical studies, but also in all the applied sciences is truly amazing. You really left me scratching my head, because I don't believe I have read any one who has ever addressed the star light problems you raised in your email. Double-face-palm.

At any rate, I apparently now have reevaluate what I have learned thanks to your thoughtful exposure of these non-thinking and brainwashed dolts. I have never seen so clearly before now.

So thank you for your loving concern. I am in your service, for you have saved me much embarrassment.

Fred

Debating the Dating of Revelation

2011-11-16T05:30:00.000-08:00

I stumbled across these videos yesterday.

I have not watched them in their entirety just yet, but I understand Hank gets "pwnd" pretty bad by Hitchcock. I figure some folks are gonna say, "Hank Hanegraaff? Why such easy pickins'?" Though I certainly agree that debating Hank on any theological subject is like shotgun blasting a bunch of baby ducks swimming in a pond, as I understand it, both Ken Gentry and Gary Demar were approached first to do the debate and both declined for whatever reason. Hank was the third choice, and next to Gentry and Demar, he is certainly a recognizable preterist popularizer who has published on the subject.

Hitchcock's dissertation was on the dating of Revelation. Though a 95 AD writing of John's Revelation does nothing to impact a futurist view of the prophecy, that date certainly does impact the preterist interpretation of the book making it unworkable.

Hitchcock's dissertation is available for free PDF download here:

A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation

(BTW, the download was agonizingly slow and I am running on a superfast internet connection. You folks with dial-up in Cave City, Arkansas may want to do some chores while you wait).

Debate is watchable in three parts:

Debate on the Date of the Book of Revelation (Part 1 of 3) from Thomas Ice on Vimeo.

Debate on the Date of the Book of Revelation (Part 2 of 3) from Thomas Ice on Vimeo.

Debate on the Date of the Book of Revelation (Part 3 of 3) from Thomas Ice on Vimeo.

Gleanings in 1st Samuel [2]

2011-11-15T05:50:00.000-08:00

Hannah’s Vow [1 Samuel 1:1-11]

The book of Samuel opens during a period of spiritual darkness. As we will see a bit later, this time is marked by priestly ineptitude, priestly sin, and disobedience by the people. In the midst of this, God raises up Samuel to return the hearts of the people back to God and to anoint the first two kings.

The first chapter introduces us to Samuel family. Three individuals: Elkanah, Hannah, and Peninnah.

Elkanah

The opening verse of chapter 1 tells us about Samuel’s father, Elkanah. He is provides a unique picture to Samuel’s family background.

The Bible tells us that he was from the mountains of Ephraim, and he is called an Ephraimite. However, in 1 Chronicles 6:22-28; 33-38, we are told he is a Levite, specifically from the family of Kohath.

How exactly do we understand this? This is the importance of the genealogical lists recorded in the Bible, those brutally boring sections we tend to glance over during our daily Bible reading.

Joshua 24:33 tells us the Levites lived in the hill region of Ephraim, so Samuel’s family is geographically an Ephramite, however genealogically a Levite.

Elkanah is described as a godly man. It is clear he has a deep devotion to the Lord as he makes trips to Shiloh to worship at the Tabernacle. However, he had a problem.

Hannah

Elkanah’s wife, Hannah, was barren. In fact, the note in verse 2 says rather bluntly, “Hannah had no children.” To the reader of Scripture, there is a reason she is barren: It’s by divine decree. Verse 5 says, The LORD had shut her womb.”

Modern readers tend to overlook the direness of her situation, because being childless was a great stigma in her society.

First, if a woman was barren, she could not strengthen her clan, or family, which would mean, secondly, that she would be unable to pass the inheritance along to any descendants. In Hannah’s mind, she believes she is unfavored by the Lord, or even cursed.

Penninah

But verse 2 tells us Elkanah had two wives: Hannah and a second woman, Penninah. But why is that? If Hannah is said to be barren, how exactly then did Elkanah take it upon himself to get children? He took a second wife, Penninah.

Hannah was his first wife; his first true love. We can see this in the way he treated Hannah (verse 5). Penninah, however, was there to simply produce the babies.

Some would think the Bible condones polygamy, but it doesn’t. No where does God approve of this arrangement. Elkanah took a sinful, fleshly approach to fixing a situation, rather than praying and asking the Lord for help to begin with.

One can note the sinful impact polygamy has on the family. A rivalry is made in which Hannah is mocked and provoked and her relationship made miserable (verse 6). I would imagine Penninah even invoked God’s sovereignty against Hannah but reminding her that God is the one who gives babies and He must not love her, or He would give her one.

What then does Hannah do? She does what all believers should do when their souls are vexed: She prays. She pours out her heart to the LORD and vows a vow that if God will give her a child, she in turn will consecrate him before the Lord.

cont.

Just in Time for Black Friday

2011-11-14T05:45:00.000-08:00

Cars 2: An Assessment

2011-11-11T09:50:00.000-08:00

Is Pixar on the verge of jumping the cultural shark?

Pixar has always exemplified competent film-making. All of their movies have been consistently well-done in both writing and production. If you are a geek like myself, and have ever taken the time to watch the documentaries that come on the DVDs telling how the film was made, or sit through the movie and watch it with the audio commentary turned on, you know the heart, soul, and passion the entire animation team put in to their work. In a way, it is like they see themselves as crafting a piece of art, not just making a movie.

In my opinion, I haven’t seen a “bad” Pixar film yet. I have ranked in my mind my favorites, but all of them are brilliant and contain their own endearing charm.

The original Cars is like that. It wasn’t one of my favorites at first. When I saw the trailer, I wondered how they were going to pull off the concept of anamorphic talking automobiles. I didn’t see it when it was released in the theater, but I waited until it came out on video. I thought it was fun, but I thought it was “okay.” As always, Pixar did a masterful job tackling the subject of talking cars, but I was more of a The Incredibles fan.

Because I have three boys who like Matchbox and Hot Wheels, Nana got them the video for Christmas. I cannot say how many times I have “watched” it on Saturday mornings, but somewhere around the 14th viewing, the movie began to grow on me and I was appreciating it more than when I first saw it. In fact, I imagine the DVD release is what made the characters so popular across the world. It’s Pixar genius really. Little kids, boys in particular, love cars. When the parents need a “baby-sitter” for 80 minutes, Cars is the perfect thing to throw in the player.

Added to that is Disney’s line of Hot Wheel cars modeled after the characters, because what did my kids want for Christmas and birthdays now? And on top of that, the “Car toons” videos featuring Mater the tow truck voiced by Larry the Cable Guy, manufactures a climate just begging for a second, full-length feature film with all the Cars characters. That is exactly what we got this past summer.

Cars 2 has recently been released on DVD and being on my sons’ wish list for Christmas I’m caused to reflect on the film. Unlike the first one, I did see Cars 2 in the theater. I even made a special trip down to Burbank to watch it at the cavernous AMC theater complex.

The gist of the story is simple. In this outing, Lightning McQueen has been invited to participate in the international world grand prix that will be held in Japan, Italy, and England. While this international racing championship is going on, Mater, who is tagging along as the crew chief, gets himself entangled in espionage with a couple of James Bond-like characters who mistakenly believe he is an American operative who holds a piece of valuable information. Thus the comedy mayhem ensues.

Like all their previous films, the animation was glorious to behold. One can only marvel at the painstaking attention to scrutinizing detail that comes from this team of animators. The movie also has the right amount of inside, adult humor in the story and visuals that is barely over the heads of the children in order to keep the parents entertained.

Yet, in spite of that Pixar magic, the film veers off course in an unusual direction.

Running through the entire movie as the main sub-plot is a message of muddled environmentalism. The bad guy in the movie is an oil tycoon who wants to discredit the use of alternative fuels so he can control all the oil reserves. (He’s probably a Republican, too). I see this plot line, however, as a troubling exposure of a deeper agenda.

Pixar, I believe, has reached a place in the hearts of average Americans where people trust them. Their films are not only well done production-wise, but also tell a heartwarming story with a moral at the end extoling the good values of friendship, faithfulness, overcoming fears, and family.

But now that they have earned this place, I believe we are seeing the beginnings of them exploiting that trust. Within the last 12 years or so, Pixar’s films never had a hint of leftist activism in them. They were politically “neutral” so to speak. Probably the first one to hint at any sort of activism was Wall-E, which, according to the critics, was a movie slamming capitalist consumerism and promoting environmentalism. I could see what they meant with that movie, but I saw Wall-E as more of a science fiction film, and what good is a futuristic sci-fi movie without an apocalyptic hellscape? Though maybe the makers at Pixar had in mind subtle hints of environmentalism, I saw the demise of the earth by pollution in the context of the larger story about the robot.

There is no subtly with Cars 2; it screams in your face. John Lasseter, who directed the film, even stated in an interview he wanted to get across a clear environmentalist message. So I am not shooting in the dark when I offer my objections.

The problem, however, with this new found push in activist film-making, is that it causes the storyline to suffer. At the risk of sounding like some Star Wars geek complaining about the logical continuity problems in Episode I, let me give an example of what I mean.

All through the movie there are occasional comments made by the characters talking about pollution, dirty air, and a clean environment. But think about it for a moment? Why would automobiles care about environmental activism? They’re automobiles, not people. Green technology and recycling really has no bearing on them.

But before you dismiss me, think a moment about the sub-plot of an oil tycoon who wants to discredit alternative fuels. What is it that makes automobiles run? In other words, what is their “food?” To have cars talking about how their “food” is bad and ruins the environment is sort of strange, don’t you think? Maybe someone can argue that they wanted to promote strict vegetarianism rather than environmentalism, but I find such an argument in the context of a movie about talking cars who depend upon oil to survive a bit weird.

Moreover is the hint of bigotry woven into the story with the main bad guys. They are lemons; you know classic defective automobiles like American Motors Gremlin or the Chrysler LeBaron. One of the motivations for their criminal activities was due to them being shunned by the other cars because of their lemon status. They were second class citizens in the Cars world.

Now, whether the animators intended this or not, I left the movie with the impression that the reason for their crooked, pro-oil ways had to do with them being defective. It was their handicap that made them bad. Rather than being pitied, because that’s just the way they are made, being a lemon could potentially stir up major personality flaws. Anyone see any major inconsistencies with a team of animators who more than likely believe homosexual orientation is “normal” human behavior?

Maybe I’m reading way too much into this, but I took it as something of a jab against the character of any oil producer or anti-environmentalist. I, as a conservative who believes environmentalism is an enormous waste of time and money let alone a religious cult, am defective at heart, which makes me a “lemon.”

Whatever the case may be, it is undeniable that Pixar is moving into the promotion of leftist causes in their films. And for liberals who operate according to a leftist ideology, what is the biggest leftist issue currently in America they would like promoted in the psyche of their young audience?

Consider their animated short “Day and Night” that ran before Toy Story 3. It was a bizarre cartoon featuring two androgynous egg-shaped characters who were suppose to represent how people need to get along with each other in spite of their “differences.” A speech is heard on a radio station toward the end of the short in which the narrator says the unknown should not be feared but embraced. Say what you will, it was an indictment against any group (Oh, I don’t know – like evangelical Christians) that is perceived as being rigid and unyielding with their convictions.

If you think I am mistaken about this move toward homosexual advocacy, take a look at the video put together by a group of the main animators at Pixar studios exhorting homosexual youth that life “only gets better” if you merely embrace who you truly are as gay.

I don’t know how far away it is, but I’ll bet with in the next few years, Pixar will be releasing a film featuring either a story with homosexual undertones, or a key character who is gay. It is just a matter of time.

It is regrettable, because this otherwise fine film company is on their way to jumping the cultural shark.

The Ehrman/Wallace Debate

2011-11-09T12:30:00.000-08:00

Ed Komoszewski breaks down the most recent debate between Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace regarding the reliability of the NT documents.

Don't Put the Bart Before the Horse

And while were on the subject of Bart Ehrman and the NT, you may also want to check out Michael Kruger's review of his most recent anti-Christian screed, Forged.

ht: Dan

Gleanings in 1st Samuel [1]

2011-11-08T05:40:00.000-08:00

Introduction

I have had occasion to teach through the books of Samuel in both a home Bible study setting, as well as from a pulpit. Though most of my study has been from the first book of Samuel, these two books are favorites of mine. God is clearly put on display, and the stories are legendary, especially for flannel graphs in junior church!

Over the next several months, I wanted to reproduce my notes I have accumulated over the times I have taught the book in the same fashion I did with Job and Daniel as blog posts. Hopefully it will be an encouragement for my readers.

-------

Before diving into the text of Samuel, it is important to establish the historical context for when the events recorded in this book took place.

Let me provide a big picture and work my way down to the time of Samuel.

Beginning in Genesis, we have the record of YHWH God calling out Abraham, choosing him to be the individual who will father the people who will become Israel. Abraham begets Isaac, who begets Jacob, who begets the 12 sons who will father the tribes that will be Israel.

In God’s providence, at the close of Genesis, the entire family is moved to Egypt where they live for 430 years (Exodus 12:40-42). God delivers the family that by the time of the Exodus, has become a great nation. This happens around 1446/45 B.C.* After 40 years of wandering in the wilderness because of their unbelief, God brings them into the promise land under the leadership of Joshua.

The land was not entirely subdued; Israel was commissioned to finish the work Joshua had started, yet they failed in accomplishing that task. Thus began a dark time in Israel’s history known as the Judges. The key description of that period, “There was no king in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

The books of Samuel, at least the first part chronicling Samuel’s life, overlap with the last part of Judges.

For instances, Samuel was more than likely a contemporary with Samson. The encounters with the Philistines described in 1 Samuel 7:13-14 may very well be a result of the events recorded in Judges 16:23-30. The Philistines were attacking Israel due to the exploits of Samson, and the destruction of their temple at his hands stirred them to war.

Samuel then was considered the last judge, but he was also the first official prophet of Israel. It was with Samuel, then, that we see the rise in the prophetic office.

A prophet did not just foresee the future. His function was much more than that. A prophet was a divine spokesman – the mouthpiece for the LORD.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:15-22 provide us a working picture of a prophet.

1. He was to be an Israelite that declared to the people the covenant made with YHWH.

2. He presented “new revelation.”

3. That “new revelation” had to be continuous with the previous revelation, or what was contained in the Mosaic law – Deut. 13:1-5. In other words, he didn’t present “revelation” that contradicted what was revealed before or led the people away from YHWH and into disobedience.

4. A prophet would receive a distinct call.

5. He declared God’s word, or we could say he was God’s spokesman.

6. His office was verified by undeniable signs of divine unction. Usually those signs were a prophetic word that came to pass shortly after it was given to the hearers.

It is important to note that God’s people were responsible for “testing” the new revelation by the standard (canon) of the older revelation. They were to verify the authenticity of the signs.

Who wrote Samuel?

A good portion was by Samuel, but Samuel dies in 25:1. How was the record completed? First Chronicles 29:29 provides us a clue. It speaks about the books (or “words of”) Samuel the seer and Nathan and Gad. The second two were prophetic men who ministered with David. They kept the books of revelation (book of Jasher – 2 Sam. 1:18) and the records of David (1 Chron. 27:24). The remainder of what is 1 and 2 Samuel would have been filled in by those two men.

_____

*I do not wish to get bogged down in the particular arguments for either the early or late date for the Exodus. One of the better sources to establish why I choose the 1446/5 date for the Exodus can be read in a paper by Doug Petrovich, Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus-Pharaoh. Additionally, more support for this date can be read in Leon Wood’s, A Survey of Israel’s History, and Eugene Merrill’s, Kingdom of Priests: A History of OT Israel. Also, the website, Associates for Biblical Research, has material available on-line that sorts through the arguments.

Murmuration

2011-11-07T05:40:00.000-08:00

From Challies, who always seems to post these before anyone else.

Wait for it. Takes a few seconds to get going.

Dad’s Super Awesome Saturday Morning Pancakes

2011-11-04T07:05:00.000-07:00

Or at least that is what my kids call them…

My wife does most of the cooking at our house, for which I am grateful. Occasionally, depending upon the circumstances, I may have to substitute; but I work off a set of pre-written, precisely detailed instructions my wife has left me so my chances of truly ruining anything is greatly reduced.

Sometime early on in the childhood development of our kids, I started making pancakes on Saturday mornings. It has become something of a weekly ritual. Every once in a while I may switch to making waffles, but pancakes have become my area of expertise. A few people who have eaten them ask about my recipe, so I thought I would write it up in a post.

Any good cooking depends upon two things: a good recipe and a cook’s experience cooking the recipe. I’ll break down my recipe and my tips.

Originally when I started my pancake odyssey, I tried boxed pancake mixes and Bisquick as a flour base and used whole milk to mix, but I couldn’t produce the kind of pancake I liked. I wanted to cook a plate of pancakes Michelle Obama would publicly condemn, but devour in her kitchen when the press wasn’t looking. A plate of pancakes that could easily make it onto those yearly health magazine lists of “Breakfasts You Should Really, Really Avoid.”

Then, I thought about going entirely from scratch, so I started scanning cook books. I figured it would take a bit of time to prepare, but ultimately, the pancakes produced would be so much more superior. Additionally, I wanted to use buttermilk rather than normal milk. I am sure it has to be the unhealthy, heart-killing, stroke-inducing elements in the buttermilk that makes them good, but the pancakes made from buttermilk I just loved.

I finally landed on a recipe I liked. It was taken from a cook book that is suppose to provide you with the “top secret” recipes of famous restaurants. This one was for pancakes made at International House of Pancakes. Here’s the list of ingredients.

2 & 1/2 cups of flour
1/2 cup of sugar
2 teaspoons of baking soda
2 teaspoons of baking powder (Yes. “soda” and “powder” are two different things).
1/2 teaspoon of salt
2 eggs
2 teaspoons of vanilla (though you can adjust to your taste)
1/2 cup of vegetable oil
3 cups of buttermilk

And just to let you know, I have already doubled the recipe, because the paltry amount of pancakes the original yielded eventually became unsatisfactory to meet our family’s needs. This recipe makes around 12-14 (or more, depending on how big you make them) pancakes. If you need less, you’ll have to divide the measurements in half.

Now. I grab my mixing bowl and add together all my wet ingredients first. One thing that is absolutely necessary in my preparation is a hand-held mixer. I have found it essential as a time saver, as well as the means of distributing the ingredients evenly and smoothly through out. I long for the day we can get our selves a Kitchen-Aid mixer.

By the way, there is no particular order in which you need to mix the wet ingredients. I only make sure my buttermilk is in the bowl with my two eggs before I mix so I won’t slop the eggs on the counter.

Next, I add my dry ingredients. When I started making these pancakes, I would mix the dry ingredients all together in a separate, stainless steel bowl as seen in the picture above and then slowly, little-by-little, add the mixture to the wet ingredients mixing them as I added.

I have changed my technique over the last year since I took that picture. (Note my TeamPyro mug, btw). Now, after I have mixed the wet ingredients, I add each of the dry ingredients one by one and mix them together. I save the sugar and flour until last. With the flour, I add 1/2 cup measurements and mix as I go until I have added all the 2 &1/2 cups. Doing it in this fashion first keeps your mixer from burning out attempting to mix a big bunch of flour at once, and it removes any lumps that could remain in the batter.

Once that is done comes the griddling.

I have to use an electric griddle and a stove-top pan in order for the pancakes to be finished in a timely fashion. I pre-heat the oven to 200 while I am mixing the batter, and place a plate or metal pan in the oven to keep the pancakes warm as I cook them. Watch them, though, because they will dry out if you dither too long cooking.

I then use a 1/2 cup to 1 cup measuring cup to ladle the batter onto the hot griddle. As a bonus, you can add blue berries or chocolate chips (or both!). I add a handful AFTER I have ladled the batter onto the griddle. Sprinkle your berries or chocolate chips in the cooking batter. Doing it this way makes for an more even distribution of berries or chips.

I was once really fastidious about how long they cooked on each side, so I would set a timer to two minutes or so. Now I have learned to eye-ball them.

The original instructions called for you to oil a pan, or spray Pam on the griddle. I guess you could do this, but I found that the oil absorbed the heat and the pancakes did not get to that lovely, chestnut brown color I like. They came out more of a Labrador Retriever yellowish tan. I use a non-stick pan and use a little, if any Pam. The result is a fabulous pancake.

You can then serve them any way you like. With heart-attack bacon and sausage, and for the true food Pharisees, with fruit, like strawberries. Just don’t add whip cream like my family does.

When the Church Growth Expert Visits the Deacon's Meeting

2011-11-03T08:30:00.000-07:00

Answering a Cranky Evidentialist

2011-11-02T06:40:00.001-07:00

….And I don’t mean William Lane Craig or Norman Geisler.

Back in 2009, I had occasion to briefly interact with a pastor who was a self-described “evidentialist Calvinist.” We exchanged words on the subject of apologetic methodology in the combox under a post entitled, The Problem with The Evidentialist Approach to Apologetics.

My detractor had a strong dislike for presuppositionalism in general, and Van Til specifically. He even put up an article at his personal blog called something like, “Van Til Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About,” if memory serves. I tried looking for it to give it a link, but the post had been removed for one reason or another.

Anyhow, in the combox exchange, the evidentialist left a number of bullet points attempting to challenge my view of apologetic methodology. I kept a copy of the comments in a file labeled “possible blog articles” with the intention of writing a post or two from them, but life and work distracted me, and I forgot about them. I recently came across them again and I thought it may be instructional to offer my thoughts.

I’ll try to organize the material to flow a bit better than the typical back-and-forth in a combox.

1. “Autonomous” is nothing but a pejorative buzzword.

It would be helpful if our detractor would flesh this comment out more. How exactly is “autonomous” a “buzzword?” Does he mean to say it is a fairly recent addition to the Reformed vocabulary? Or that the concept of “autonomous” as it relates to man’s reasoning is unsubstantiated in Scripture?

If he means that “autonomous” is an unbiblical word, only originating with presuppositionalists, this is a rather problematic assertion. It’s like saying the word “Trinity” is unbiblical because it is nowhere found in the pages of Scripture and had its coinage in the writings of early apologists like Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

When presuppositionalists speak of “autonomous,” they have in mind the idea of sinners who are not submitted to the authority of God as revealed in Scripture. “Autonomous” has in mind what Paul describes as those “lofty and high things that exalts itself against the knowledge of God” and those thoughts that “are not captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). Individuals Paul also describes as being “futile in their thoughts” (Romans 1:21) and who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (vs. 18). This is reasoning originating from the sinful heart of men that attempts to rationalize man’s rebellion against their Creator.

2. “Autonomous” reasoning is all God gave us, to receive and evaluate information. There ain’t anything else.

Again, definitions would be helpful. “Autonomous” is not to be equated with the ability to receive and evaluate information; at least the concept of “autonomous” as defined by presuppositionalists. We are not talking about the manner in which a person evaluates chemical reactions, for instance. We are speaking about a person who attempts to live life apart from the “fear of the LORD” as Proverbs describes it.

3. If God is above logic, as Van Til claimed, then we can’t know anything about God. This principle is the pathway to neo-orthodoxy and spiritual skepticism.

I am assuming my evidentialist friend here has read what Van Til has taught on the subject? Be that as it may, I am not sure where he is getting this claim from Van Til. As I understand what Van Til taught about God and logic, at least according to John Frame as he reports in his book on Van Til’s theology, he believed the foundation of logic was to be the nature of God, meaning logic doesn’t operate independently of God. In this sense, one could say God is “above” logic, because the reason the world is “logical” has to do with God.

4. If you have to understand everything (the eternal context) in order to understand any one thing (brute facts), then none of us know anything. Which is a foolish claim.

I think what he is missing is how presuppositionalists insist that true knowledge begins with a fear of the LORD. This isn’t a “foolish claim” but a biblical one, for instance, Proverbs 1:7; 9:10. How exactly does my evidentialist detractor understanding those passages?

5. If Christians and non-Christians share nothing in common epistemologically, then we are incapable of reasoning with each other, and are forced to just yell louder and more assertively at people. And add pejorative adjectives like the word “brute” in front of innocent words like “facts.”

I wonder what sort of “presuppositionalists” this pastor has spoken with. Perhaps there are muddled presuppositionalists he has encountered, but I personally can think of none who would argue in such a fashion as to say Christians and non-Christians share nothing in common epistemologically. The issue is not that they fail to see the world logically, for example. It is that they live inconsistently to what they believe by suppressing those truths when it comes to ultimate issues, like the submission to God as their sovereign authority.

6. The argument that presupposing the Christian worldview makes everything else intelligible is… an argument based on evidence. It’s called “the argument from coherence.” Like C.S. Lewis’ “I believe in the sun because by the sun I see everything else.”

As I understand “the argument from coherence” it is merely saying that one’s worldview, or philosophy of life, should be cohesive and consistent as a whole. In other words, portions of your thinking aren’t detached and irrational to the rest of what you may advocate.

Of course such cohesiveness is based on “evidence,” no one is denying such a thing. But it is “evidenced” upon the conclusions of one’s presuppositions. The fact that one can see everything presupposes the luminosity of light that the sun generates.

7. The Bible nowhere claims to be self-attesting. Van Til made that up.

That’s a rather ignorant assertion if this guy genuinely believes it. The idea of the Bible being “self-attesting, or better, “having self-authenticating qualities,” is an historic, Protestant Reformed doctrine. For example, the WCF states in chapter 1:iv,

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

Also, consider the concluding sentence of the next point, 1:v, which says,

…our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

You’ll note with 1:iv, the writers state that the authority of Holy Scripture is not dependent upon the “testimony of any man or church.” You can read there also, “established by extra-biblical evidence;” certainly “extra-biblical evidence acting as an authority over Scripture.” Rather, Scripture is the Word of God because it is wholly from God as it claims. Other theologians have historically affirmed this position, including Calvin, Bavinck, and Warfield, all who pretty much pre-date Van Til.

8. Nothing in 2 Timothy 3:16 claims that the Scripture is self-attesting. 2 Timothy 3:16 claims that the Scripture is divinely inspired. Is that what you mean by self-attesting … so do all the other major religious texts in the world.

This is a rather surprising statement. The very doctrine of inspiration implies self-authentication, because inspiration is a work of God. The fact that God is the inspirer of Scripture, which is His revelation, means its veracity and integrity is intricately woven to His character. Scripture’s authority derives from God’s authority. As the writer of Hebrews notes, For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, (Hebrews 6:13).

Additionally, major religious texts do not necessarily claim this kind of inspiration. They may claim an uniqueness to a particular guru, but nothing like the self-disclosed God revealed in Scripture. The closest competitors, like the Qu’ran, and I can maybe add the Book of Mormon also, derive their authority from the Old and New Testaments, or previously disclosed revelation. If those books deviate from the consistency of the previous revelation or Scripture, which both the Qu’ran and the Book of Mormon do so rather radically, those book are to be counted as suspect if not outright fraudulent.

9. The noetic effects of sin have no bearing on the fundamentals of presuppositionalism…

The idea of the noetic effects of the fall implies that all men, due to them being separated from God, have their reasoning impacted by that fall also. Contrary to what my evidentialist detractor argues, the noetic effects of the fall go beyond just causing men to be blinded to the Gospel message. They are not merely limited to understanding and accepting spiritual things.

Rather, the fall has impacted all of man’s reasoning abilities in much broader areas. Once again for example, what Paul identifies as “suppressing the truth.” If one is already presupposed to anti-supernatural materialism and scientism as the means of all knowledge, any “evidence” or “testimony” or “facts” that directly challenge those presuppositions will be explained away in light of those presuppositions – or denied outright in some cases.

This is why appeals to evidence alone are not sufficient to convince men hostile to God about the truthfulness of Christianity. All the evidence will be interpreted according to philosophical axioms which spin the conclusions one makes about that evidence.

10. If evidentialism is so bad, why does God use it in Scripture?

I certainly agree God uses evidence in Scripture. I wouldn’t deny it for a moment. For example, in Luke 2, after the angels pronounce the birth of the Messiah to the shepherds, they say to one another, “Let’s go see if this is true.” They wanted evidence, and the angel told them where they could find it.

I as a presuppositionalist am not opposed to the use of evidence. I just recognize that in all the examples of evidence used in Scripture, God is divinely telling us what the evidence means. The cross was merely an instrument of torture and death utilized by the Roman government. God, however, puts a specific interpretation on that cross that now has an entirely new emphasis.

11. Brute facts are the only facts available to anyone. Your knowledge of what I wrote, which controlled the occasion to which you replied, is 100% comprised of brute facts. You don't God's "big picture" in, around, and through my comment, nor do know it regarding yours, but here we are talking anyway. …

As I understand Van Til’s view of “brute facts,” he meant to say there are no “uninterpreted facts.” That being, all facts everywhere must be interpreted. One’s presuppositions then interpret those facts.

I am able to communicate with people because God is my creator and He created men to communicate not only with Him, but with each other. God is also not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), which can be extended to mean God is “logical” in all that He does. Communication implies some logical cohesiveness in the means of “communicating,” things like vocabulary, syntax, and grammar that allow people to understand each other.

12. … Jesus said, "Believe I'm the Son of God because I work miracles." God didn't give people philosophy lessons in Dutch Idealism before giving them proofs of His own identity. The point remains, one can't promote a philosophy of knowing that isn't taught in the Bible (whether explicitly, or by a necessity of logic, as the WCF says), and in fact is contradicted by the words and actions of God.

But here in the 21^st century, no one has seen Jesus do miracles. We base our conviction that Jesus did miracles on the veracity of the testimony from eye-witnesses; a testimony that is revealed and preserved in Scripture. Our starting point begins with our faith in God’s truthful character and His ability to keep His word that He will preserve Scripture.

13. … Yes, the Bible does depend throughout on empirical verifications. If archaeologists ever find Jesus' skeleton (hypothetically speaking), then Christianity and the Bible aren't true. Correct?

My faith in the veracity of God’s Word is tied directly to what God has revealed of Himself as a Truth telling God. As I noted in my response to my evidentialist challenger,

All critics of Daniel said the book was false simply because chapter 5 mentioned Belshazzer as the king of Babylon. Anyone even remotely familiar with Babylonian history knew Nebonidus was the last king of Babylon. This discrepancy was not solved until it was found in the Nebonidus Chronicles, discovered around the late 1860s, that Nebonidus appointed his son, Belshazzer to be king in Babylon as a co-regent. So was Daniel true before that time, in other words, self-attesting?

Additionally, sensationalist glory hound, Simcha Jacobovici, claims to have found the Jesus family tomb including the bone box of Jesus. Discovery Channel ran a documentary on it. Has he proven the Bible to be an untruthful revelation? I think my cranky evidentialist would say no.

Star Wars Humor

2011-11-01T05:30:00.000-07:00

Ah, Yes.

A little geek humor to tide us over until I can get to bigger things.

I never really felt sorry for that wampa until now. Bless his heart.

(sorry for the commercial)

“Into the Wild,” A Review

2011-10-28T05:00:00.000-07:00

In 2008 I posted a review of a movie called Into the Wild. It was a Sean Penn directed film dramatizing the last couple of years in the life of Chris McCandless who hiked alone into the Alaskan wilderness, became stranded, and starved to death sometime in the late summer of 1992. The movie was certainly engaging. Penn - his radical leftist nuttery aside - did a good job detailing this young man's life and death.

At the time, I stated in my review how I was bothered by Penn's portrayal of McCandless as some anti-traditionalist, leftist tramp who found the true meaning of life as a transient freegan. Penn painted him as a hero we should emulate.

I, on the other hand, saw a selfish, ungrateful young man who didn't respect his parents, and his voyage into the wilderness was his way of running from his bitterness. While this movie was oddly compelling as a biographical story, it didn't stir in me any sympathy for this McCandless character and his plight. He was foolish and naive about the danger of living in the Alaskan wilderness, and in a way, had it coming when he got stranded in the middle of nowhere. It made me wonder why there was a need to even make a movie about him.

A volunteer friend of mine knew I had watched the movie, so she loaned me her copy of the John Krakauer book to read. I did, and I have to say my opinion of the young man has change a bit.

Books rarely translate into movies well. Anytime you see a movie that has been made from a popular novel, without fail, you'll come across that one person who gushes on and on how the book is so much better than the movie. For my wife and I, neither of us have read any of the Harry Potter novels. I just started listening to them in audio format. All of our understanding of Harry Potter's world has been shaped by the movie series. Each time a new one comes out, we have to shield ourselves from those Potter purists or have our movie going experience ruined.

But I digress.

Obviously, Penn and his production company are limited with the amount of material they can cover in order to make this movie. I expected as much; but in the case of the book and the movie, Penn's version of Into the Wild lacked some important details about McCandless that made his portrayal of him a tad incomplete. At least I don't recall any of these details discussed in the film. Having seen the movie and then read the book, intentionally or not, it actually irritates me Penn overlooked mentioning one significant family issue that shaped this young man's motivation.

I'll get to that in the moment.

I think many of my readers are familiar with the story. Upon graduating from Emory University, Chris McCandless, a bright young man from a well-to-do family, gave away his life savings, abandoned his possessions, and dropped out of life. For two years or so, none of his family or friends knew where he was or what became of him. Then, in September of 1992, his body was found in a junked out bus near the border of the Denali National Park in Alaska.

The author, Jon Krakauer, traces the last two years of his life leading up to his demise in Alaska. He locates the people McCandless knew during those two years and from their testimony about his life, sketches out what happened to him after he disappeared in the spring of 1990.

Rather than being a homeless advocating folk hero that was depicted in Penn's movie, Krakauer's version of McCandless is a more admirable character, even though I personally think he was seriously unwise to travel across the American Southwest by himself.

Overall there are few areas where Krakauer's book fills in detail surrounding this young man's life that Penn's movie left out.

First, the book provides much more information about the people McCandless encountered. The one person I was intrigued by was the pseudonymous “Ron Franz,” a lonely widower in his 80s. McCandless met him near the Salton Sea in Southern California and the two became fast friends, a relationship the movie presents well with Hal Holbrook as Franz.

After losing his wife and son in an automobile accident, Franz remained unmarried the remainder of his life and spent a lot of his time as a mentor to several local kids from hard backgrounds, even helping two of them through college and medical school. When he met McCandless, his "paternal" interest were stirred once again, and Franz befriended him, helping out financially and even teaching him leather work.

What is missed in the movie, but recorded in the book, is McCandless's influence upon Franz. After McCandless left for Alaska, he wrote to Franz suggesting he experience life out-of-doors as it were. When Franz received his letter, he did just that: He bought a camper, moved near the Salton Sea, and lived out under the stars for several months.

Kraukuer makes a point to describe how Franz was a "devout Christian," though he doesn't provide any specifics as to where he attended church. Eight months after McCandless had left for Alaska, on Dec. 26th, Franz picked up a couple of young hitchhikers near Salton City. As they got to talking, Franz told them about his friendship with McCandless and his trip to Alaska. The description happened to "click" with one of the young guys and he sadly informed Franz that he had just read about his death in an issue of Outdoor magazine.

Kraukuer writes that upon hearing that news, Franz instantly became an atheist, renounced the Lord, and removed his name from church membership. According to Franz, when his friend left on his Alaskan trip, he had prayed for God to watch after him, but obviously, at least to Franz, God didn't hear his prayer.

As a Christian, I already know the answer to my own question, but when I hear stories like this one, I am always left wondering, why would a person abandon all belief in God just because his personal expectations were not met? I wish I could have had the opportunity to talk to the guy when he heard the tragic news of his friend.

A second area where the book fills in more detail than what the movie offers is the significant family matter I noted previously. From what I got from the movie, McCandless came from a typical, upper-middle class, well-to-do family. The stereotypical east coast family where all the kids are stunningly beautiful, attend ivy league schools, and play lacrosse.

The movie was meant to suggest how McCandless threw off the shackles of his boring, middle class prison to become a man of the true world. He is pictured as the enlightened, environmental socialist do-gooder who had transcended his intellectual and emotionally stifling world of suburbia.

His parents were shown to be nice, loving people, but aloof to what really mattered in life, especially those things in the life of their son. Even though they were good to him, they were overbearing, wanting to mold Chris into their cookie-cutter WASPy life. Whereas the director, Penn, held up McCandless as an archetype of what true freedom is, I saw the character Penn painted as selfish, bitter, brash, and ultimately receiving the comeuppance of his own foolishness.

The book reveals to us, however, that there was a few more layers of complexity between Chris and his parents that were ignored by the movie. The most significant is that after his father separated from his first wife and married the woman who would be Chris's mother, he maintained a double-life by continuing a relationship with his first wife, even producing a child, a situation Chris never knew about until after high school. When this unseemly part of his father's life came to light, Chris, feeling betrayed, withdrew emotionally from his parents.

That little detail framed his perspective much better for me. I can understand how a worldly, idealistic, and strong-headed young man would be troubled by such revelations. So much so that he would feel the need to "get away," strike out on his own and find his place in the world. Yet his reaction was to a sinful indiscretion and personal let-down that he doesn't wish to deal with, and regrettably, he paid for it with his life.

A third detail is where McCandless died. The movie gave the impression, at least to me, that he was deep into the Alaskan wilderness away from any known civilization. When he realized he was trapped by a raging river, McCandless might as well have been on the moon, because he was miles and miles from possible rescue.

In reality, however, he was only 20 miles or so west of the small town of Healy, AK, on a well known trail that is traveled frequently by hunters and hikers, that after reading Krakauer's description of his location, I am actually surprised McCandless didn't encounter anyone else the time he was alone in the wilderness.

Additionally, once he realized the river he needed to cross was impassible, if he had invested in a detailed, topographical map, rather than the simple one he had with him, he could have walked north about a half mile from his position at the bus and found a park ranger gauging station with a basket suspended on a cable over the river. Krakauer ironically notes that when he found the gauging station a year or so after McCandless's death, the basket was on his side of the river. It would had been nothing for McCandless to have pulled himself across and walk out back to town.

Moreover, south of the bus about 6 miles were some ranger cabins well stocked with food, and only 4 miles south, a privately owned cabin with similar supplies. In fact, the privately owned cabin was vandalized the summer when McCandless was in the wild, and the owner believes he is the prime suspect for the damage, suggesting that McCandless found the cabin shortly after he arrived in the area and thrashed the place as his way of getting retribution against a piece of "civilization" intruding into his wilderness adventure.

Yet, all of that is hindsight now. At points, Krakauer tries to make elaborate excuses for McCandless's apparent lack of preparation for wilderness living. But let's be honest: It doesn't matter how smart and industrious McCandless may have been as a young man, he demonstrated a serious failure in wisdom walking into unknown wilderness without the proper clothing and basic survival needs, like a compass. A 5 pound bag of rice and a .22 rifle ain't gonna be enough.

One last bit of information Krakauer provides in his book is his discussion of other similar young men who have been lost in the wild. One Alaska park ranger dubbed it "the McCandless Phenomenon:" The bizarre fascination misty-eyed, romantic-minded, 20-somethings have with trying to conquer the wilderness. Krakauer gives a biographical sketch of similar guys like McCandless. For instance, Everett Ruess who disappeared in the southern Utah desert in the 1930s, the eccentric John Waterman who also died in Alaska during the 70s, and Texan, Carl McCunn, who moved to Alaska, went on a summer long camping trip, only to commit suicide before dying of starvation because he forgot to arrange for a bush pilot to pick him up at summer's end.

Sketching out these stories also allows Krakauer to reminisces about his climb of Devil’s Thumb peak in southern Alaska. The retelling of his story takes up two chapters in the book, and I thought it slowed down the pace. It felt narcissistic; as if he just wanted to insert himself into the theme of oddball men attempting to conquer the wild. A reader can skip it and pick up with his journey to the so-called "magic school bus" where McCandless's body was found.

And, as strange as it is, the school bus has become something of a tourist attraction since the publication of Krakauer's book, in some cases, a shrine of pilgrimage for many folks. A web search for "Chris McCandless," "Into the Wild" and "school bus" will pull together a host of personal blogs, websites, and Youtube videos of people chronicling their trek down the Stampede trail and to the abandoned bus where McCandless's body was found.

Krakauer's book is certainly a fascinating read, and like I noted at the outset, his record of Chris McCandless makes me more sympathetic to him by giving me a clearer perspective of the young man than what Penn's movie did. Yet I still agree with the Alaskan locals that McCandless isn't the anti-traditionalist hero who should be imitated. At least the hero many of the college aged tourists who pilgrimage to that bus make him out to be. I tend to agree with park ranger, Peter Christian, who wrote about McCandless, "When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn’t even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic and inconsiderate."

One interesting footnote is a documentary that came out around the time of Penn's theatrically released film that attempts to debunk the Krakauer/Penn interpretation of McCandless's demise of poisoning himself with wild plants. What this documentary purportedly does is to show that McCandless died of starvation because, as he wrote in a note to potential hikers who may had come to that bus, he was injured and didn't have the strength to leave.

What is a Zionist?

2011-10-26T11:00:00.000-07:00

A politically conservative writer from my corner of the world (who is a non-Christian as far as I know) recently sent out a mass email to members of a discussion group in which I participate on occasion. He was asking for our input answering the question: “What is a “Zionist.”

Typically I just glance over emails like these and delete them, but the subject matter was related to recent posts I discussed on my blog, and because I want to return to writing on eschatology, and premillennialism specifically, I thought I would respond to this writer’s inquiry.

What follows are my comments to him, slightly expanded and edited for my readership.

In our modern, politically correct world, “Zionist” has become something of a dirty word. It’s like being called a “Nazi” or a “racist.” The idea being that a “Zionist,” at least according to the American liberal, p.c. mind, is any person who is unquestionably loyal to, and supports the Jewish state of Israel, in spite of the fact the Israeli government is cruel, bigoted, and openly persecutes the innocent non-Jews (usually defined as Palestinian Arabs) who live alongside of the Jews and under the thumb of the State.

The more bizarre haters of “Zionism” accuse the “Zionists” (usually “Jews,” though “evangelicals” can be included) of conspiratorial dealings within governments, businesses, and banking, clandestinely shaping those entities to ultimately favor the Jewish State.

The idea of “Zionism” reflects two facets. First is the secular idea of “Zionism.” That simply being the idea that the state of Israel has the right to exist as a nation, as well as the right for their government and the people to defend themselves against murderous terrorists groups who seek their ultimate destruction.

Now, does that necessarily mean that the modern state of Israel is without fault in all that they do in their defense of themselves? Of course not. Does that mean, then, that I automatically condemn them completely for the faults they have made defending themselves and fighting their enemies? I would say no once more.

I have heard people say (including one atheist commenter here at my blog) that Israel should be condemned for X,Y, or Z actions they did that resulted in innocent people getting killed or misguided hippie college students ran over by bulldozers. Could one say that was a bad move on Israel’s part or it was a stupid, indefensible action? Of course. But condemned?

Besides, what exactly does that mean, anyways, that they are to be condemned? That I can agree they have acted stupidly and are not pure as snow when they have retaliated against the Palestinians? I could probably say yes to that definition. But if by “condemned,” a person means the Jews need to renounce their 1948 statehood, pack up and leave Jerusalem, and hand over everything to the Muslims who hate them, well then no, I don’t “condemn” them.

The modern state of Israel is certainly an unusual state in that its citizens share a close proximity to their mortal enemies. But like any secular state in such a high pressure situation, they will make mistakes and act rashly and there will be innocent casualties in conflicts with those enemies.

Obviously their enemies, and the useful idiots in Europe and America who support them, focus the world’s attention on those disastrous actions that happen when the Israeli government is forced to defend themselves and press their rights to exist. While at the same time they ignore the larger picture that Israel’s enemies want them erased from the earth and driven into the sea at all costs. That tends to put the conflict into sharper perspective.

Yet there is a second facet to the concept of “Zionism,” however. One that cannot be exclusively defined along secular, political lines. There is much more to Zionism than a political disagreement between pollyannish, pacifist lefties and conservative right-wingers. There is a spiritual and theological component to Zionism that cannot be overlooked. That is because “Israel,” as a nation, represents a unique people in history.

Israel is a people who are identified with God almighty, who were especially chosen to enter into a covenant with God, a people from whom the savior of the entire world would come. As a Bible believing Christian, I am a “Zionist” because I believe God has made specific, covenant promises with the Jews that He will be certain to fulfill, and that fulfillment is tied directly to the land on which the state of Israel currently exists.

It is mistakenly believed “Zionism” is a 20^th century phenomena, because Israel wasn’t really recognized as a national state until 1948. But the fact of the matter is that before “Zionism” was called what it is, there were many individuals supportive of Israel’s restoration to their land.

The idea of supporting a restoration of the Jews to Israel began with the post-Reformation Puritans. Though most Reformers believed (and still believe) the promises given to the Jews were fulfilled in Christ and the Christian Church, the recovery of the biblical text in the myriad of language translations that were published in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, coupled with a renewal of biblical exegesis – or the principles of proper Bible study – began to stir up in the hearts of Christians that God has not “fulfilled” His promise to Israel only in the Church. Rather, those promises are yet to be fulfilled in the future with a restoration of the Jews in a physical land identified in Scripture as Israel. This is clearly taught in such places as Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 31:35ff., Ezekiel 37, Micah 4:1ff., Zechariah 14, and Romans 9-11.

In the secular context, I consider myself a “Zionist” in that I believe Israel has a right to exist in their land and I believe they have the right to defend themselves against groups and nations who seek their demise as does any nation whose citizens would be in the same situation.

In the theological context, I am a “Zionist” in that I believe the presence of the Jews in the current land of Israel has future, prophetic significance, even though the Jews are currently in a state of divinely induced blindness as Paul notes in Romans 11:25.

FBT Updates

2011-10-25T04:55:00.000-07:00

I have been doing a devotional series on the book of Judges with my volunteers. The first four messages are available here if anyone is interested:

Studies in Judges

KJVO Harmony

2011-10-24T05:40:00.000-07:00

Saw this at Sharper Iron:

KJV Singles Website

This video explains it all.

I thought: Really? This just has to be some cruel hoax.

Upon my first visit, I was surprised to see an inappropriate Google banner ad:

This site has only been up 2 months and Satan is already trying to besmirch this godly work with images of babies dressed like winged devils. It's terrible.

Atheist Podcast

2011-10-20T06:50:00.000-07:00

Pastor Dustin Segers and Sye TenBruggencate recently had a long interchange/debate with a couple of English atheist "evangelists" who run a site called Fundamentally Flawed.

When I say the podcast is long, I mean long; almost three hours. I think the last Harry Potter movie was almost three hours, so you know what sort of time you are committing to this thing.

Link to the podcast can be located at Pastor Segers' webpage: Atheist Debate

It is probably one of the better exchanges demonstrating the use of presuppositionalism as an apologetic methodology. There was another podcast a few weeks ago involving a fellow who blogs at Triablogue, but with 6 atheists talking with one Christian, the discussion was difficult to follow. They talked over each other and rabbit trailed off, bouncing around on unrelated subjects. That not only makes for a bad discussion, it annoys the listener.

Anyhow, I was particularly delighted to hear Dustin interact with the two English atheists, because not only is he rock solid theologically and articulate, he has a good voice for these sorts of interviews that is easy on the ear. At least for me.

I will say the more useful portion is the first hour or so, because Dustin and Sye demonstrate well how to utilize presuppositionalism in their encounter. The remainder of the time was more wobbly, because the atheists absolutely refused to justify their claims against their Christian opponents. One seemed to keep insisting there is no such thing as a "worldview" or presuppositions that shape how a person knows and interprets the world. If a person sincerely thinks that, it's hard to move forward. In fact, that would be my only constructive criticism, the Christians needed to move on to answering some of their challengers' questions. I understand why Dustin and Sye kept coming back to pressing the atheists' truth claims, but I think if they had answered the atheists' questions regarding Darwinianism and creationism, for example, I think Dustin and Sye would have had a ready made illustration proving the point they were making.

How Exactly is This Picture an Idol?

2011-10-19T09:35:00.000-07:00

Fan of Turretin has offered a response to my post last week on the incarnation and idolatry. It’s a worthy attempt defending his stringent Reformed traditions, but I believe he labors with some difficulty to prove biblically that the second commandment strictly forbids artistic works of Jesus Christ, or that such works (like a Sunday school flannel graph of the feeding of the 5,000), constitutes the making of an idol.

For example. One argument he puts forth - and this one is typical in these discussions - is that the Bible does not provide a physical description of Jesus. But why should it and why does that then exclude a person making a painting depicting the Sermon on the Mount? Pretty much every person mentioned in the Bible isn’t presented with a physical description. Like Joshua, or Samuel, or Daniel, or Peter.

But I would say there is enough information historically about the times when Jesus lived that we can make a good educated guess what he probably looked like. In fact, we do know from the Bible that he wore sandals (Matthew 3:11), wore a tunic (John 19:23), has scars on his hands and body (John 20:20). Moreover, John gives a rather impressive description of the glorified Christ in Revelation 1:12-16, where he describes His clothes and appearance. It is similar to the descriptions by the prophets Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:26-28) and Daniel (Daniel 10:4-12).

Still, one can argue that’s not exactly a “physical” description telling us the color of his eyes and the shape of his nose, hence, we are forbidden to speculate based upon the second commandment. Really? Why exactly? I think such a claim misses the entire point of the second commandment, and I think this is where the Puritans who argue in this fashion run off the rails.

The text of Exodus 20:2-5 states,

2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.

Allow me to make some expositional observations of these verses.

1) The preface (vs.2) helps to establish the context. God distinguishes Himself from the false gods of the pagans. He is distinct in that He exists (I am YHWH) and He has acted on behalf of His people, that is, He brought them out of Egypt. So in distinction to the pagan deities, YHWH has demonstrated His worthiness to be worshiped in the actions He has done.

2) And because He exists and demonstrates His worthiness for worship, He can demand that His people worship no other gods. He can demand this of His people because no other gods of those pagan nations have ever a) proven their existence, or b) demonstrated their power and worthiness to be worshiped by acting in time and space.

3) The second commandment, then, functions as a direct result of the preface and the first commandment. Idols represent the false gods that don’t exist to begin with and that are unworthy of any reverence.

4) But the second commandment goes on to forbid the “bowing down and serving” of that carved/graven image. It’s the “bowing down and serving” that makes the image sinful. This is a point my detractors tend to gloss over. The idol was more than just an artistic rendering of a god, but the people attributed power and authority to that idol. It functioned as a talisman, the dwelling place of that deity. That is why the Philistines took the Ark of the Covenant and placed it in the temple of Dagon in 1 Samuel 5 and 6. They believed it was the dwelling place of the Israelite God and that their god had conquered their God.

“Bowing down and serving” an idol in reverence and ritual was believed to initiate the favor of that deity attached to the idol toward the worshippers.

In a manner of speaking, it’s a similar concept to the “health and wealth” cults of today in which the worshipper does certain things that supposedly stirs up “God” to bless and prosper him or her. And it definitely is the same as the Roman Catholic iconography with their statues, shrines, rosary beads, and the like.

5) It is also important to note, as I mentioned in my previous post, that I don’t believe God the Son is in view here with the second commandment’s prohibition. It is the God the Father to whom the second commandment is applied.

This point has caused much dismay with my detractors because it suggests I am denying the Trinity or I am saying the concept of the Trinity was a later development within a post-apostolic, Christian theology. Their objection is understandable, but I am merely attempting to be honest with the text of Exodus.

While it is certainly possible to place the fullest NT revelation we have been given about the Godhead back upon Exodus 20, I believe this causes a problem with the incarnation. As I stated in the last post, once the Son became flesh, He took on the image of a man. Anyone who interacted with Christ during His earthly life, and specifically His three year ministry, saw Him. They looked into His face, heard Him speak. Even more, hundreds of people witnessed Him in His resurrected glory. When He ascended, how could they have NOT thought of what He looked like when they worshiped? Did they make mental idols of Christ based upon what they knew for certain He looked like and knew from the sound of His voice?

Now, with those observations in mind, let’s consider some practical matters. Look at this picture.

It depicts Christ walking with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus reproduced from an historical scene in the Gospel of Luke. We don’t know if the road was heavily wooded as the picture shows, or what was the true color of the clothes the two disciples were wearing. But we do know Jesus walked with them and taught them all that the OT revealed about who He was. How exactly, then, is this an idol as prohibited by the second commandment? In what way are people bowing down and serving this alleged idol?

Let’s consider a couple of the examples that Matthew fellow pointed out to accuse John MacArthur of idolatry.

First, from the book, The Murder of Jesus

The picture on the book represents the cruel beating and eventual crucifixion of our Lord. He was smitten, bruised, and had a crown of thorns placed on His head. Again, the picture depicts a real, historical event, the trial and murder of Jesus. An event thousands of people witnessed. How exactly is this an idol as prohibited by the second commandment? I know of no one who bows down and serves this so-called idol.

Again, look at the cover of John’s book, The Jesus You Can’t Ignore

One can argue this more contemporary looking image, that doesn’t even show the whole face of Jesus, isn’t of any particular historical event. Granted, but it is of an historical person, and it isn’t irreverent. It merely illustrates the fact that Jesus was a significant person who confronted sinners with God’s truth. In other words, He can’t be ignored. So again, how is this an idol as prohibited by the second commandment?

A violation of the second commandment would be a carved idol used in the worship of a group of people who bow down and “serve” it by participating in the religious rituals attached to the deity of that idol and living out that religious service in their lives.

I just don’t see how visual art work depicting a real, historical person merely drawn to illustrate scenes from the Gospels is “idolatry.” I think it is a real stretch for my Puritan friends.

The Peshitta Syriac NT and The TR

2011-10-17T06:40:00.000-07:00

The following is from Doug Kutilek’s outstanding monthly digest, As I See It, volume 14, number 10. Mr. Kutilek always has something interesting to consider and it is worth your time receiving his “notes.” Free subscriptions can be obtained by contacting the author at the page linked above.

The Peshitta Syriac NT

--VERSUS--

The Textus Receptus and the King James Version

The most commonly met with assertions in pro “King James Only” literature regarding the Peshitta Syriac translation of the NT are:

1. that the Peshitta is the earliest translation of the Greek NT, dating to the middle of the second century A.D., nearly two centuries before those most-hated-by-them of Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, were written, and therefore much more likely to give the original form of the NT than they; and,

2. that the Peshitta agrees closely (or is even identical) with the “textus receptus” and therefore also with the KJV in the disputes over the precise original form of the text of the NT.

(A third claim, that Syriac often preserves the exact original words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic, rather than translating them as the Greek Gospels do, is readily discredited, but will be left out of this present discussion).

These very claims in part were the motivation behind my taking 9 hours of Syriac (along with 13 hours of the closely related Aramaic language) in graduate school. I wanted to be able to independently verify--or discredit--claims I heard about “the Syriac says this” and “the Syriac reads that.”

I have acquired over the years several different editions of the Peshitta Bible, OT, NT, Gospels, and editions of some other ancient Syriac versions of the Gospels and Revelation. When relevant, I regularly consult the Syriac versions on questions regarding the text or translation of passages in both testaments (as numerous articles in As I See It attest). And, while I have not given the Syriac translations or the Syriac language the attention I have wanted to, I still can sight read a fair amount of it, and can, with lexicon and grammar in hand, work through whatever I cannot immediately read. I say this to note that I have in each case either directly discovered or personally verified every variant reading I mention in the body of this article. Nothing is accepted “second hand” on the basis of the “critical apparatus” --footnotes--of the Nestle or United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testaments (though I will say that I have never yet discovered a place where they erroneously gave the evidence regarding the Peshitta, and I do recommend the critical apparatus of those Greek texts as a good place to glean the readings of the Peshitta, even if you cannot read Syriac).

The Peshitta Syriac translation is indeed among the most important Bible translations ever made (ranking only behind the Latin Vulgate). However, the claims for a mid-second century date for the Peshitta NT, popular in mid-19^th century literature, have been wholly discredited. Discoveries in the 19^th century compelled this change in view. The oldest form of the Gospels in Syriac historically attested was Tatian’s Diatessaron, a “harmony” of the Gospels, not in parallel columns like the harmonies used today, but with the four texts interwoven into a continuous narrative. Dating to circa 170 A.D., the Diatessaron in Syriac has disappeared, except for some few fragments (due to deliberate suppression by ecclesiastical authorities) and is largely known today through translations into Arabic, Armenian, Dutch and other languages.

In the 1840s, a 5^th century manuscript of the “divided” (i.e., un-“Tatianized”) Gospels in an early Syriac translation was discovered and published by William Cureton. The translation in this fragmentary manuscript is clearly earlier than the Peshitta and a lineal predecessor of the Peshitta (that is, the Peshitta is a revision of the version found in the Curetonian manuscript). Then, in the 1890s, a second, earlier manuscript (4^th century) containing the old Syriac version of the Gospels in a somewhat different form was discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery at the base of Mount Sinai. Incomplete due to the ravages of time, this Sinaitic Syriac manuscript in conjunction with the Curetonian manuscript contain nearly the complete text of the old Syriac version of the Gospels. (There are references to an old Syriac--i.e. pre-Peshitta--version of the rest of the NT epistles, but no manuscript of these is known to exist today).

The study and comparison of Tatian’s Diatessaron, the two old Syriac Gospel manuscripts, the Peshitta Syriac version and the quotations from the Gospels in the two most important and pre-Peshitta Syrian church fathers, Ephraim and Aphraates, led to the certain conclusion that the Peshitta version of the NT did not exist until around 420 A.D., rather than in the 2^nd century (see my review in As I See It 3:4 of S. Ephraim's Quotations from the Gospel collected and arranged by F. Crawford Burkitt. vol. VII, no. 2 of Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, ed. by J. Armitage Robinson). The former opinion of the extreme antiquity of the Peshitta NT is abandoned today.

Furthermore, the claim that the Peshitta Syriac NT, regardless of its date of origin, regularly lines up with the textus receptus Greek text and therefore the KJV is a claim that can only be made on the basis of ignorance of the facts. In truth, the Peshitta NT differs from the TR / KJV in hundreds of details, many of them of just the sort where the Alexandrian text of Vaticanus and / or Sinaiticus also differ from the TR / KJV. I have not compiled a complete catalog of these Peshitta differences from the TR / KJV, but among those of particular note are:

Matthew 27:46-- Peshitta omits, “that is, my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”

Matthew 28:18-- adds, from John 20:21, “As my father sent me, thus I send you.”

Mark 1:2-- reads “Isaiah the prophet” (vs. “the prophets”)

John 1:18--reads “God” (vs. “Son”)

John 7:53-8:11--lacks this famous incident (which is also absent from all known Greek mss. before the 8^th century A. D., except “D”)

Acts 8:37--does not insert this addition to the text (which is also absent from a strong majority of Greek manuscripts)

Acts 9:5b-6a--does not have this insertion made by Erasmus against all Greek manuscript evidence

Romans 1:16--does not insert the words “of Christ” after the word “Gospel”

Romans 8:1--does not insert the phrase ”but after the spirit”

Colossians 1:14--does not insert “through his blood” (absent also from nearly all Greek manuscripts)

I Timothy 3:16--has a relative pronoun (vs. “God” in TR)

I John 3:2--retains phrase “and we are” omitted by TR

I John 5:7--does not insert this comma (which is not found in the precise TR form in any known Greek manuscript)

(Revelation 22:19 the Syriac version--here the Harclean/Philoxenian, there being no Peshitta version of this book--reads “tree of life” (vs. “book’), along with all known Greek manuscripts

I could GREATLY expand this list. If all the differences between the TR and the Peshitta NT were catalogued, I suspect the list would run to many hundreds, perhaps a couple of thousand differences, perhaps more. There are of course many differences between the Peshitta Syriac and the Masoretic Hebrew text in the OT as well. Therefore let all KJVO advocates cease and desist in their false--demonstrably false--claims that the Peshitta NT dates to the 2^nd century and is therefore earlier in attestation that the Alexandrian text; and the equally erroneous claim that the Peshitta regularly sides with the TR / KJV against the Alexandrian text from.

[Let me say a word about the Peshitta Syriac OT. It is widely held by those who have studied the evidence 1) that the Pentateuch of the Syriac OT version in its oldest form dates from the mid-1^st century A. D.; 2) that it, like the rest of the Peshitta OT, was made directly from the Hebrew text but is strongly influenced by targumic traditions (the targums, or targumim, are Aramaic translations/interpretations and in some cases expansive paraphrases); 3) that this translation of the Pentateuch was in the century or so that followed supplemented so as to include the whole OT; and 4) that the whole was revised under the influence of the Septuagint Greek version. And let it be noted that the vowel points which the Hebrew Masoretic scribes added to their consonantal text during the Middles Ages were “inspired” by the prior example of Syrian Christian scribes who employed sub- and supra-linear forms of borrowed Greek vowels to indicate the pronunciation of their previously all-consonant Syriac text].

The Incarnation and Idolatry

2011-10-13T06:20:00.000-07:00

I was recently alerted to a video by a fellow named Matthew Lankford. You only need to concern yourself with the first 7 or 8 minutes:

The Idolatry of John MacArthur

Oh my. You gotta love these Puritan lynch mobs.

It’s hard to figure out where to begin.

I will say that I can sympathize a bit with Matthew’s consternation with regards to pictures of Jesus. As I have argued elsewhere, I don’t believe pictures of Jesus are even close to being the idolatry Matthew condemns in his video and that he is misapplying the second commandment.

That stated, however, I am not particularly fond of all the modern displays of Jesus, because I don’t believe they capture accurately what He looked like. IOW, I don’t think Jesus looked anything like Kenny Loggins or Dan Haggerty. Nor do I like sacrilegious Precious Moments-like figurines that cheapen who Jesus truly is and what He did.

Before offering a response, it may be helpful to read what John has actually said about images of Jesus in Christian artwork. The more comprehensive comment linked by Matthew is from a Q&A session done, from what I can gather, in 1980:

The text, "thou shalt not make any carved image" is based upon the prior verse: "thou shalt have no other gods before Me." "Thou shalt not make thee any carved image or any likeness of anything that is in Heaven above or in the earth beneath." The assumption is that you're not to worship the stars, the sun, the birds, the animals, man, any other thing. But once God invaded the world in a human form, He gave substance or image, didn't He? And that's exactly what Hebrews 1 says, that He is the express, what?...image of God. God...God gave us an icon. And I hate to use that sense, but God gave us an image. God gave us a model and a pattern. So I don't think that it is outside...I don't think it violates this intent to make an image which is constituted as another god. You could never make an image of a spirit being. Right? So He couldn't be talking about an image of Himself. I mean, not essentially. But there was a case where they did this. You know, in the golden calf incident, I don't know if you've thought this through, but if you read the text, in the wilderness when the people made the golden calf, you remember Moses was up on the mountain getting the law and the people were down with Aaron making the golden calf. They made the golden calf as a representative of the true God. It was not a pagan idol. It was...it was the representation of their own God. They were still, in some sense, monotheistic. They were trying to represent God, and that's what the text indicates, in that calf. And at that point, God judged them. The only proper manifestation that God has ever permitted of His Person is in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Now, there's one other thing that I might just mention. God has used a lot of symbols of His Person. In the Old Testament I can think of one major thing was a serpent on the rod, which, in a sense, pictured Christ. And there's much language imagery as well. Every lamb that was slain was, in a sense, prefiguring Christ. But I think you're safe in saying that since God has revealed Himself, this is the bottom line, God has revealed Himself in the image of man, the man Christ Jesus, that God allows us that one representation. I don't have a problem with that. He allows us that one representation so that we see God in human dimension.

Now, having said that, let me say this. We do not have in our house a picture of Jesus of any kind because I don't think any of them look like Him, probably, and I would rather have Him be who He really is than me to assume that He is someone He's not. That's just a personal thing. So what we do is, without having a picture of Jesus, we still encourage our children to read many, many Christian books and all of them have pictures of Jesus, but all of them have pictured Him differently. And I think you're pretty safe if you approach it that way. If you get some great big head of Christ slammed in the middle of your house, I'm not against that. That's okay if you like that but I perceive Christ in my own mind and I'm very comfortable with that and I've never yet seen the picture that looks like what I believe He is. So that's just a personal preference. But I really don't think the spirit of Deuteronomy 5:8 is broken when we have representation of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, the word imagery of the New Testament paints for us marvelous pictures of Christ. And you can never, I don't know about you, you can never, I can say for myself, I can never really read an account in the Gospels of Christ without vivid imagery of His Person; can you? I mean, when I see Him, for example, reach down and touch a leper, if that was just God doing that, I don't know that I could even focus on that. When you think of God, do you think of something? Do you think of a form or a shape? I don't. I don't think of...I don't know that I think of anything. But when I think of Christ, immediately I have this image of the robe and His hands and you know... So I really think that the spirit of the person who simply has in his mind or perceives Christ in human form is not in violation of that.

Now. Returning to the video, I believe there are a couple of glaring problems I see with what Matthew thinks is idolatry.

First, the second commandment prohibits idolatry as it relates to the worship of God the Father, the only true God. As John pointed out in his response, the prohibition builds upon the first commandment that forbids the worship of any other gods. Idols were considered the home of the so-called deity, or it had attributed to it some supernatural power that governed the people in a superstitious manner. Thus, an idol represents a god that is worshiped at the center of a pagan, socio-religious worldview.

So at the outset, his objection to John’s views of images in artwork is misplaced and exegetically unsound.

Second. The main problem with Matthew’s view of idolatry, is that if we work his conclusion to its logical end, he would be setting up God to be violating His own commandment when God the Son became incarnate.

Think about it: Jesus was a man – God becoming flesh. He was seen by thousands of people. He spoke and taught. As the apostle John says in the opening of his first epistle, “That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hand have handled, concerning the Word of life.” I believe John is speaking literally here. This isn’t his flowery words describing a really strong spiritual experience. He truly saw, heard, and touched the Lord of Glory, because He was in the “image of a man.”

Now generally, one of the arguments thrown out is that God did not inspire the NT writers to describe Christ’s physical appearance. Perhaps God did; but Jesus was still a real, historical man who lived in space and time, just like Justin Martyr, John Calvin, and Abraham Lincoln. He was “veiled in flesh, the Godhead see,” as the classic Christmas carol goes.

Additionally, Jesus received worship on numerous occasions, the most notable example is Thomas in John 20:28 who exclaimed, “My Lord and My God.” These people were worshiping a visible, flesh and blood person. Obviously it was not idolatry, because Jesus was God in the flesh, but He was still real, sinewy, sweaty flesh.

Matthew takes a cheap shot at John by saying he naively embraces a Roman Catholic view of images that allows them to worship Mary and the saints. Honestly, is that what John is advocating? Even though no physical description of Jesus exists that is not a violation of the second commandment nor does it forbid Christians from representing Jesus in artwork or passion plays because, once again, He was a real, historical man and those representations do not have anything supernatural attributed to them.

Now. Where I would say the second commandment is violated is with some art work like “The Creation of Man” as depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Not only do you have the image of God the Father, but He reclines on what looks to be a flying sea shell with a topless woman and a bunch of corpulent children. And, I don’t think God look anything like John Brown.

The Protocols of the Elders of Dispensationalism

2011-10-11T07:00:00.000-07:00

Jamin Hubner is becoming like a YRR version of Jack Chick, but without the funny comics. Whereas Jack Chick attributes all the ills in the Christian church to Roman Catholicism, Jamin attributes them to Dispensationalism. All he needs is an ex-Dispensationalist, Alberto-like whistleblower.

Jamin writes,

Fred mentions a “Dispensational conspiracy influencing American political policy regarding Israel ” that I supposedly believe in. I don’t believe in any “conspiracy,” but if Fred is seriously suggesting that the movement of Dispensationalism has had no impact on US foreign policy with Israel in the last 60 years, he is gravely mistaken and in ignorance of the facts (I would refer you to Marsden’s works for historical analysis on American culture and Dispensationalism, and Meirsheimer’s [sic] The Israel Lobby for at least some introductory observations on a variety of related issues; there’s more sources than these but I can’t remember them at the moment).

For what it’s worth, if Jamin really wants to understand the reason for the recent criticism he complains about in his post, he needs to re-read that paragraph. It’s this sort of borderline, shoot-from-the-hip, crackpot statement that gets him into trouble.

The fact of the matter is that Jamin has such a deep animosity toward Dispensationalism that it has blinded his better judgment as an up-and-coming apologist.

Lookit. If you’re going take upon yourself the role of an internet apologist, to the point of even establishing an on-line, theological journal complete with technical rules for contributors, I guess I am expecting a bit more academic objectivity in the articles you post disagreeing with various points of view. As a reader, I would expect more from a guy who is allowed to post on the blog of a ministry that has worked hard over the years to cultivate a respectable reputation in regards to such matters.

Would it be entirely fair to cite the National Council of Church’s 2007 resolution against “Christian Zionism” and claim it is representative of what motivates Jamin’s theology against Israel? Implementing Dispensationalists in a Zionist conspiracy to manipulate American foreign policy falls in a similar category.

Consider Jamin’s two examples:

First he notes the George Marsden’s historical analysis of Dispensationalism as proof of what he claims. But searching Marsden’s three major works on American Fundamentalism, Fundamentalism and American Culture, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, and Reforming Fundamentalism, no where in any of those works does he mention Dispensationalism’s influence on foreign policy regarding Israel. Marsden points out Dispensationalism’s attempts at social reforms in the U.S. and against the rising tide of Communism in Russia during the earlier part of the 20th century, but nothing specifically in regards to Israel.

Now. Certainly there have been individual Dispensationalists and Dispensational oriented ministries that have attempted to lobby on behalf of the State of Israel, but I don’t see their actions as a bad thing. It’s no more a bad thing than Christian ministries lobbying against gay marriage or for homeschooling rights.

Jamin’s second citation, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, is one of those examples of sloppy argumentation and research against Dispensationalism that I had mentioned on a previous occasion. I had never heard of the book, so I had to go to faithful old wack-a-pedia to find some information on it, and what I found was troubling. I was especially troubled an alleged, up-and-coming Christian apologist would appeal to it uncritically as a reliable source for his position, which makes me wonder about his discernment in these matters.

It is one thing to cite from the book; it is quite another to ignore the crushing weight of criticism the two authors have received for their theory. If people like Christopher Hitchens, George Shultz, and a host of other similar “academics,” including moonbat Noam Chomsky, find their work severely lacking and folks like Jimmy Carter, David Duke, and Osama bin Laden give it high praise, it may behoove Jamin to at least take note that a bias may be involved here.

My advice to Jamin if he wishes to continue his crusade against Dispensationalism is to actually deal honestly with what the theology teaches. Stop singling out and focusing on hyper-Dispensationalism as if he thinks it is a theological aberration of what is otherwise considered sound theology. Jamin puts the garden variety Dispensationalism in the same category of error as the hyper variety, so he needs to discard the façade. He doesn’t care for either one. But that is okay. Just refer to my post from last year to gather reliable resources in your study.

Moreover, I hope Jamin reads a bit more widely in history as to Christians and the Restoration of the Jews to the land of Palestine. Surprisingly, the wack-a-pedia article on Christian Zionism is somewhat good as it lays down the historical background. It is important to note that what is now derogatorily labeled “Christian Zionism” was called the Christian Restoration movement in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is an area Jamin needs to evaluate, because something tells me Increase Mather and Ezra Stiles could hardly be implicated in a Dispensational, Zionist cabal.

God’s Wisdom in Proverbs–A Review

2011-10-07T06:35:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year I was sent a pre-pub, PDF copy of Dan Phillips's book, God's Wisdom in Proverbs, along with a set of questions asking my varied opinions of what I read.

There was a dead-line for submitting my answers to the questions, so I had to quickly skim through the material. Even though my review was hurried, I was immensely enriched by what I read. I knew that when the book was finally published, I wanted to have a copy for my personal library.

Dan's book is a study in the book of Proverbs. However, it isn't a verse-by-verse, exegetical or technical commentary. That's not to say Dan doesn't know his stuff, because his study is far from superficial. This isn’t a 120 page race through Solomon's writings.

Rather, he has in mind the Bible-loving, truth-adoring, God-worshiping saints as he works through his material. Dan writes as a wise pastor concerned for the best instruction he can give his people providing them rich, theological insights that lay a ground work so that they too can receive the maximum benefit from reading the Proverbs. Most academic commentaries don't have that in mind.

Dan's work is outlined in eight chapters and four appendices. Chapter one is an exposition of Proverb 1:1, and is a general introduction to Solomon as king of Israel and writer of God's divine revelation. Chapters two through four are for the most part an exegetical and theological study on Proverbs 1:2-7, and Dan talks to us about true wisdom, what wisdom means, how wisdom is founded in the character of God and our fear of him, what fearing God means, and what it means for God's people to truly pursue wisdom.

In fact, my favorite all time quote from the book is Dan’s working definition of wisdom found in the first chapter: “Wisdom is (in part) the application of objective revelation to the details of life. … wisdom is skill for living in the fear of Yahweh.” [11, emphasis his].

As he moves into chapters five through eight, he draws us to thinking about practical application. Godly wisdom must be personally applied or it is worthless. Dan writes, "Wisdom is never merely a matter of knowing facts, but of knowing what to do with them - and doing it." [39]

He then surveys four major areas in a believer's life where wisdom should be worked out. First is in our worship and trust of God; and next in our relationships with our fellow men; and then in our marriage and raising children.

These four chapters are particularly well-done, because Dan exemplifies what makes good Bible teaching. He has the giftedness to communicate profound theology, making it understandable for regular folks and enjoyable to learn.

Four appendices round out the book. Appendix three was of interest to me, because Dan takes up an exposition of Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go…,” and discusses whether or not this verse is a promise or a threat. I already knew what I believed about this passage before I read Dan’s take, and he compellingly solidified my position.

There is also a detailed bibliography of works cited in Dan’s book. But as an added bonus, he lists all the major Proverb commentaries currently in print – and this especially warmed my heart – he then provides his quick evaluation of a good number of them, telling us what he thinks and whether or not it is a “yea” or “nay” as a worthy contribution. My favorite comment is for William McKane’s commentary: “Radically liberal; unless you’re a writing academic, don’t bother.” I couldn’t agree more.

I am currently going through his book a second time now that I am able to go much slower, chew longer, and digest what I am reading. What I truly appreciate about this second time is how Dan is sharpening my thinking about God. He has helped me to re-evaluate what I think about wisdom and how I should convey that to my family and in my broader ministry to other Christians.

If you are someone who is looking to teach the Proverbs from the pulpit, or in Sunday school, or maybe a home Bible study group; or even if you just want to personally have a better understanding of this wonderful treasure God has given us, you have to get this book. Dan writes with knowledge of the subject and a passion for God and His people. Believe me; You’ll benefit greatly from this study.

Israel and the Language of Expansion

2011-10-04T04:55:00.000-07:00

What really is at the heart of Jamin's views of Israel, the modern state of Israel, and whether Israel can lay claim upon the Holy Land? Honestly, it is how one understands the place of Israel in God's entire revelation.

Is "Israel" of the OT the same as the "Church" in the NT? Was God only concerned with a godly "remnant" in the OT and not with the nation as a whole dwelling in the physical promised land in a geopolitical kingdom? Does NT fulfillment cause us to have "greater light" on God's purpose with Israel so that now, because of Christ, we re-interpret OT promises of fulfillment made to Israel in light of the NT Church?

In other words, it is a matter of the hermeneutics one brings to the texts pertaining to the promises given to Israel and how we understand those promises being fulfilled. Does the language of Scripture insist we must expand the OT promises of fulfillment to mean merely the NT Church, or will those promises of Israel being in the Holy Land in a geopolitical kingdom certainly be fulfilled in a real, tangible way?

I have explored this topic in previous posts from the last couple of years in my studies of eschatology. Other things began to occupy my time and I dropped off from my series on premillennialism, which i hope to take up again soon.

Additionally, Paul Henebury has been exploring the topic of Israel and expansionist language at his blog and has written some articles worth one's time reading. Previous articles in his series are linked at the top of the article.

Questions for An Anti-Dispensationalist

2011-10-01T18:00:00.000-07:00

Jamin Hubner makes an absurd comparison.

Talking about the history of the state of Israel with Zionist Dispensationalists … is as useful as talking about the history of the Bible with King James Onlyists.

Zionist Dispensationalists are the equivalent of KJV-onlyists? Really? Being one who once consider himself a “KJV-onlyist,” I take it that Jamin believes Zionist Dispensationalists are of the same mind-set as Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, Jack Chick, Douglass Stauffer, David Daniels, David Cloud. Individuals who cling to a particular view of textual criticism against all sound fact. One prone to historical revisionism and conspiracy theories involving clandestine heretics secretly altering the truth.

In the same manner Zionist Dispensationalists are prone to historical revisionism and conspiracy theory. They are thoughtless, believing a particularly view of biblical prophecy and the historical outworkings of that prophecy against all sound fact. Worse still, their intellectually blind allegiance is driven by a soul-damning theology.

With that in mind, I have some questions for Jamin:

What exactly is a “Zionist Dispensationalist?” [here after, “ZD.”]

Are ZDs to be distinguished from Zionists?

Are ZDs to be distinguished from Dispensationalists?

Does Jamin believe all Zionists to be Dispensationalists?

Does he believe all Dispensationalists are Zionists?

Would Dennis Prager, who supports the state of Israel, be a “ZD”?

Are all Christians who support the modern state of Israel considered ZDs?

Would any Bible-believing evangelicals who believe there is prophetic significance to the existence of the state of Israel be considered ZDs? Why or why not?

Would those evangelicals who lived prior to the 20th century, before the state of Israel, and who believed in a restoration for the nation of Israel be considered ZDs?

Would J.C. Ryle be a ZD?

Would Jonathan Edwards be a ZD?

Would Charles Spurgeon be a ZD?

Would Robert Murray M'Cheyne be a ZD?

Would Charles Hodge be a ZD?

Can a person not be a ZD and still support the modern state of Israel?

Can a person recognize that the Palestinians are worthy of condemnation on many levels and not be a ZD?

I’ll be curious to read Jamin’s answers if he so chooses to respond.

The Three Simple Questions on the State of Israel

2011-09-29T11:30:00.000-07:00

Jamin Hubner tells us again how uber-Reformed he truly is. With his latest series of posts, he attempts to uncover the political machinations Dispensationalism has had upon American foreign policy in the Middle East.

I don’t wish to try and untangle the facts from the leftist propaganda Jamin has put forth for his argument. I do wish, however, to address his challenge he has offered in the form of three questions.

1. Is it even possible for the modern-day nation of Israel to do anything worthy of condemnation?

2. And have they done anything that is worthy of condemnation in the past?

3. If they have, would it not be helpful to acknowledge and understand those events before blindly conceding to every effort to “support Israel”? (Because, if my neighbor commits sin, I don’t want to be responsible for having helped that sin to occur. Wouldn’t you agree? Or is present-day Israel incapable of doing something wrong as a national entity?)

Before I will respond, I will say this: I believe Jamin did himself a disservice when he chose to cut off commenting on his blog, thus isolating himself from any thoughtful criticism from well-meaning bloggers. These challengers could hardly be labeled "trolls" and "hacks."

As an aspiring internet apologist, I believe this was a bad mistake on Jamin's part. I have benefited greatly from the various critics who have wandered onto my blog and challenged my arguments. Not only have they sharpened my thinking, the smarter critics have helped me evaluate my arguments and caused me to refine them. Atheist trolls, for example, may be annoying, and take a bit of time to answer, but they can be helpful in a number of ways in these regards.

At any rate, on a previous occasion, Jamin had a lot of the interaction with Steve Hays on the question of Israel and the Palestinians and their responses to one another were played out on the front pages of their individual blogs. (See TF's review of the exchange).

I think it is important to note that Jamin has an ax to grind with Dispensationalism. His current posts attacking Zionists and uncritically retelling the leftist narrative on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and implicating Dispensational conspiracy influencing American political policy regarding Israel is a shining example of Jamin's ax.

Regrettably, this blind spot prevents him from interacting with meaningful Dispensational positions on the modern state of Israel, Israel and the NT Church, and Israel’s future restoration, veering him off into a ditch of sloppy strawman argumentation and misrepresentation. Moreover, uncritically citing left leaning “evangelical” NT scholars, like Gary Burge, as one of your sources, also doesn’t help your credibility.

Now with that being stated, I'll offer my own "Dispensational" answers to his three questions.

1. Is it even possible for the modern-day nation of Israel to do anything worthy of condemnation?

Yes, certainly it is possible. Jamin, I guess, thinks all Dispensationalists believe the current State of Israel is above any condemnation for actions the government may take against their enemies. Does he really believe John Hagee speaks for all Dispensationalists who support Israel? This is just fallacious reasoning.

I recognize, as the Scripture teaches, that Israel, the people of God, will experience a future restoration in a promised kingdom; however, they are currently in a state of apostasy. Paul says as much in Romans 11:7-10. I believe an initial fulfillment of Ezekiel's dry bone prophecy has taken place with the Jews returning to their promised land. Even Reformed guys who see no “future” kingdom for Israel in a millennial kingdom, cannot just dismiss the unquestionable and unique circumstances that has taken place in the land of Israel the last century or so.

Yet, in spite of that unique history, this does not mean they are in a right relationship with God at this point. They won't be, at least I believe they won't, until Christ their true Messiah returns (Zechariah 12:10ff.).

2. And have they done anything that is worthy of condemnation in the past?

I am sure they have, though no immediate examples come to mind. Just like there have been things Americans have done that we could perhaps be condemned for. Say for example our country’s involvement with slavery and the deplorable way our government has treated the Indian nations, essentially “enslaving” them to total government dependency on reservations.

But the fact that America has done things in history past that is worthy of condemnation does not mean we need to halt the American experiment and adopt dull-minded, European socialism as our political worldview.

In the same way, the Israeli government has done things worthy of condemnation, but does that mean we dismiss the threat Palestinian Muslims are against the Jews in Israel? In spite of those things Israel could be condemned for, they pale in comparison to those things the PLO-Hamas and the leaders of the Palestinian movement can be condemned for. For instance, the last I saw, no Jews were teaching their three year-olds to be suicide bombers against Arabs.

3. If they have, would it not be helpful to acknowledge and understand those events before blindly conceding to every effort to “support Israel”? (Because, if my neighbor commits sin, I don’t want to be responsible for having helped that sin to occur. Wouldn’t you agree? Or is present-day Israel incapable of doing something wrong as a national entity?)

I am not really sure how to answer this last question. It's almost superfluous. The idea of "condemnation" begs a question: How is Jamin defining it? What does it mean "to be condemned?" Is Jamin saying that if Israelis have done some terrible things against civilian Palestinians, their overall defense of their country and people in a sea of rabid, Islamic Jew haters who want to wipe them off the face of the earth is some how questionable? Then we can no longer support them as a nation? Or perhaps he thinks this is some big theodicy for Dispensationalism?

I am all for acting neighborly, but if acting neighborly mean I have to become a martyr, to paraphrase what the Israeli prime minister recently said in a speech to the UN: “I would rather have the bad press today, than an eulogy tomorrow.”

Okay. I have answered his questions. Are my replies sufficient? I don’t expect him to like my answers, but he has been answered.

Denominational Satire

2011-09-29T05:55:00.000-07:00

Here's a handy guide

Most Lifelike Dead Animals

2011-09-27T05:20:00.000-07:00

Ojai Valley is about a 50 minute drive from me. There's a great Italian place right on the outskirts coming over the ridge from the Santa Paula side. It may be worth a day trip.

By the way, Chuck Testa has a Youtube page. Official Ojai Valley Taxidermy.

There's a video on the proper way to measure a bear's head.
HT: Phil and Kevin

Jerry Johnston’s Folly

2011-09-23T06:15:00.000-07:00

I was a tad disappointed to read this article.

Normally, I would dismiss the news as another example of what’s wrong with modern evangelicalism. Just another mega-church pastor who set out to make a name only for himself under the guise of “doing it for Jesus” driving his multi-million dollar ministry into bankruptcy. But I have a connection with Jerry Johnston: He was the guy God used to bring me to Himself.

In May of 1988, I was finishing my freshman year of college at Arkansas State. During the finals week, my church had scheduled a “revival” service and Johnston was the speaker. He was probably 28 at the time. Not only did he have the powerful, soul-winning testimony about being saved from the life of a teenage, suicidal drug head, he had the dynamic personality and the vocal pipes made for preaching. Man, oh man did the guy have the voice for preaching!

Now, while he was in town during the daytime, he was traveling around to local, area high schools giving his presentation on teen suicide and inviting the kids to a Friday night pizza blast at the new basket ball arena on our college campus. (“Pizza blast” being code word for, “we’re gonna hammer you all first with an unexpected Bible message, shame you into walking forward to receive Jesus, AND THEN you’ll get pizza).

These schools were coming to their final days of the year also, so Johnston’s suicide lecture was tailor made for a quickie time sucking general assembly.

After he gave a series of emotional, heart rending stories about teens committing suicide and the meaning of life, he crescendos his talk at the end by playing an audio recording of a teen boy’s final words before killing himself. It was a classic play right out of the fundamentalist “scaring wayward youth straight” horror story handbook. The only thing that could have made it better was if the kid had AC/DC’s “Hell’s Bells” playing in the background of his final words.

At any rate, Johnston would then give his final farewell and tells everyone to come out for pizza on Friday night and then makes a hasty retreat leaving a stuffy gymnasium full of blubbering wallflower girls and socially awkward, pimply guys. Of course, none of them wanted to return to class; they all wanted someone to share their feelings with.

Our church, who was the primary sponsor of Johnston being there, interpreted this manufactured public display of grievous teenage angst as a move of the Holy Ghost. After he had left a wake of weepy teens at a few more schools on Monday and Tuesday, a few of the youth leaders from our church thought it would be a grand idea to have evangelistic counselors available to speak with traumatized kids still reeling from his talk. Keep in mind this is the late, 1980s when you could still have evangelistic counselors in the public schools of the Bible belt South with out incurring the wrath of P.C. postmodern secularists.

Our college group was recruited to help supply the counselors, and having no class on Wednesday of that week due to finals, I was available for the afternoon session at Westside High School (where, btw, about 10 years later two boys opened fire on their classmates killing 5 people).

At this point in my life, I was a “churched” kid with good, outward morals. I had attended a lot of youth groups and church camps, but I hadn’t giving the Gospel to anyone, let alone counseled teens with thoughts of suicide. That had more to do with me not being saved rather than knowing how.

Thankfully, after the suicide talk this time, not a whole lot of the audience stuck around. Those who did were covered. That evening at the “revival” service, Johnston gave what I consider to be a fine message on personal holiness and Christ’s lordship. When the service ended, I was eager to leave, because I needed to get back to my dorm room so I could study for an algebra examine the next morning. However, the fellow I had rode to church with that evening disappeared, and I was annoyed he had left without coming to find me, so I had to catch a ride with another friend.

About an hour after I had returned to my dorm room, the missing friend came to my door to apologize and tell me the reason he disappeared was because he had gotten saved that night. He realized he was living a fake Christian life and needed to get right with God. I listened to his story, told him I wanted to hear more later, said good-bye, and returned to studying.

But I couldn’t study. This is when the Lord gripped my soul with the conviction of my sin as I pondered Johnston’s message. I began wrestling (spiritually, mind you) with the Lord and all night I couldn’t sleep. It was early in the morning hours that I finally realized my need for Christ and the Lord was pleased to save me.

Now, some 2o plus years later, I learn about the impending demise of Johnston’s mega-church ministry. It’s kind of sad, really. It’s too bad the man had to be led astray by world-wise thinking about how to do ministry. Sad, indeed. But it is example of the power of God’s Gospel to save. A “foolish” message presented by a foolish man.

Dispensationalism in Translation

2011-09-19T05:45:00.000-07:00

Jamin Hubner continues to dabble with internet apologetics. Never missing an opportunity to bash dispensationalism, he writes,

The reason the word "dispensation" doesn't appear in newer translations is for the same reason we don't see alot of the same words: there are better translations. And in the case of οἰκονομίαν there is "stewardship" or "economy." But, I guess it makes sense: if you want to prove Dispensationalism, you had better use a translation that contains the word "dispensation," regardless if that translation is really the "best" or not.

The subject of Jamin's post this time is KJV-onlyism and hyper-dispensationalism. It is true that hyper-dispensationalists, as a group, are for the most part KJV-only. Most folks, however, are probably not aware of this fact. Hyper-dispensationalists are a fringy bunch of wackos that normal Christians these days have never encountered. Their churches are small and non-influential. It would be like me saying that the New Wine Apostolic Pentecostal Church or the Strict Baptist "Gospel Mission" Churches are KJV-only.

But Jamin's target happens to be much larger. He's aiming at Dispensational theology as a whole. While it is true all Dispensationalists would agree with Jamin that hyper-dispensationalists are fringy and teach theological error, much in the same way all serious minded Calvinists believe hyper-Calvinists are fringy and teach theological error, Jamin, however, thinks ALL dispensationalists are fringy and teach theological error.

I reckon this is a typical perspective from a young man who is still in his "cage stage" as a new Reformed Covenantalist.

But moving back to the citation at hand. Does one need for the Bible to say "dispensation" (in this case, the KJV particularly) in order to believe the Bible teaches dispensationalism? Is a modern Bible translation the "silver" bullet for Dispensational theology?

First, the English word "dispensation" is transliterated from the Latin, "dispensatio" which means exactly what Jamin says it means, "an economy," "stewardship," "management." Though I would agree that a clearer, English translation of the original oikonomos and oikonomia would be "economy" or "stewardship," that still does not explain what Paul meant by the use of those terms. This is something Jamin doesn't explain. In other words, one does not need the English word "dispensation" in his Bible (i.e. the KJV) in order to believe Scripture teaches the theological concepts of "dispensationalism."

A few quotes may help clear up some misconceptions on Jamin's part:

From Craig Blasing's article in Progressive Dispensationalism, 108, 109, 111:

The apostle Paul uses both oikonomos and oikonomia to describe God's relationship with the world. Most of these uses refer to Paul's own office as an apostle of Jesus Christ. God, the Master of the world, entrusted to Paul, along with others, the apostolic responsibility of proclaiming a new revelation. Paul referred to this revelation as the mystery (or mysteries) of God and Christ ...

this use of the word dispensation refers to a new order, a new arrangement in the overall relationship between God and humankind. ...

The relationship between God and human being should be thought of as a dispensation, a management relationship which He has instituted. ...

As Paul discusses this new dispensation in his letters, three things stand out about it: (1) It is structured by certain features of a new covenant which God inaugurated to fulfill and replace the covenant He made with Israel at Sinai; (2) no distinction of race, gender, or class are being drawn in the bestowal of blessings from this new covenant - they are given to all who believe in Jesus Christ; and (3) the new dispensation is being revealed in the community that gathers in the name of Jesus Christ, the church...

... [B]y using the word dispensation (oikonomia), the Bible presents a way of understanding God's relationship with human beings in terms of arrangement (dispensations) which He has instituted in the course of history. He manages the way in which human beings are to relate to Him and to one another through these arrangements which He has set up. The church is the new dispensation which God has organized through the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. It differs in important respects from the dispensation that was in place prior to Christ. And yet it is not wholly different. This dispensation is the fulfillment of the previous one, and as we will see, it looks forward to a future arrangement in which all the promises and covenant of God will be completely and eternally fulfilled.

And then from Rolland McCune, who holds a more classic understanding of Dispensationalism, from his, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol 1, 107:

...dispensations are "distinguishable economies." That is, there are some features in each particular economy that make it sufficiently different from the previous or following economies. The feature creating such distinctions is revelation, specifically progressive revelation. In other words, not all revelation calls forth a new economy. .... these various economies with their progressive revelation are part of "God's purpose." It is God who charts the course for history, dispensing new revelation and inaugurating new economies according to His own will.

So how exactly does re-translating the word "dispensation" dismantle Dispensational theology?

Interesting Stuff on the Web

2011-09-16T05:20:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I have had the opportunity to do this...

Back in August during my break, I re-edited and re-posted some articles and book reviews at my other site. I even put them in PDF. It's like I am steppin' high and to the right. A couple of articles on apologetic practice and three book reviews:

An Essay on Handling Internet Atheists

Questions from a Skeptic

Grace, Faith, and Free-will: Contrasting Views of Salvation

Refuting Compromise

The Unbound Scriptures

I have more updates, re-edits, and re-posts in the works.

-----

And speaking of apologetics, SyeTenB of sinner's ministries, went into the lion's den of atheistic philosophy this past July and handled himself well against senior philosophy lecturer, Stephen Law and his cronies. It's worth spending ten minutes scanning through the comment thread just to read Sye's comments and challenges.

-----

Plus, Sye and pastor Dustin Segers were interviewed for a podcast on the subject of apologetic methodology and it's application in evangelism. Radio Show: The Existence of God

-----

If you run in home school circles, or even those Christian patriot circles where participants strategize on how to take America back from the Commie Marxists, you may be familiar with David Barton's Wall Builders Ministries. I am only slightly familiar with him and over the years I have appreciated what I have read of his work in anchoring our generation in the authentic history of the United States, which includes a strong Christian emphasis in spite of the ACLU's attempts at historical revisionism.

Barton has recently come out as a strong supporter of Glenn Beck, even to the point of saying his Mormonism shouldn't be an issue and making the troubling claim that Beck preaches the "gospel" when he is allowed a platform at mega-churches. Brannon Howse and Phil Johnson discuss Barton's "jumping the shark" moment as well as Christian political activism: Worldview Radio

-----

And, Phil provides a touching remembrance of Norm Sper, who was the founder of Grace to You radio. He had left working here when I arrived, but I think I recall meeting him one time a long time ago at some GTY related event. It's worth the read: An Amazing Life

-----

And in case you are wondering,

The Case of the Winebibbing Church Leader

2011-09-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

Over at Here I Blog, Mark lays out the following soul-searching scenario:

It’s Friday evening and your [sic] out to dinner with a few friends from church. Dinner is in an open area where several restaurants have outside eating areas that allow the patrons to see one another. The area was set-up to encourage community interaction where many people and families walk around and socialize both before and after dinner.

While getting ready to eat laughter coming from a table on the patio in the restaurant next door distracts your table. Looking across the patio a well known church leader can be clearly seen drinking a glass of wine. It is definitely wine as confirmed by the bottle on the table. Confirming their suspicions your friends ask and you affirm that you know this church leader. The people next to you also notice the wine and they begin grumbling about the church leader drinking in public with “those kind of people.”

Think about what you may do in this situation. Think about what you might say to the church leader and/or the folks at the table next to you. Are you angry, upset, disappointed, embarrassed, etc.?

Now pause. Move the scenario back in time for a moment.

Let’s say you are in public during Jesus’ ministry and what you are witnessing is the following:

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’… (Matthew 11:19 ESV)

The church leader in question is Jesus and you are a witness to the charges quoted in the above verse.

What would you do?
Did your reaction change with the scenario? Why or why not?
Would you do the same in both scenarios? Why or why not?
Or…. ?

As a preliminary remark, I thought it was rather telling that none of the commenters in the combox interacted with the questions raised. All of them pretty much bickered with each other over the alcoholic intensity of the wine Jesus created at the Wedding in Cana.

This makes me wonder how seriously any of these young men have thought through the issue of Christians drinking alcohol in our American culture. Do they even care about the ramifications of their choices? I digress.

Moving back to the questions.

Given the situation as outlined above, witnessing a church leader from my church drinking a glass of wine at a restaurant, my reaction would depend upon what I knew of his reputation. Is this man known to be godly and one who is spiritually sensitive to the needs of the people he helps to shepherd? If I knew him to be a sober-minded, Christ-honoring man, I wouldn't become alarmed if I saw him drinking wine with a group of people.

The situation is contrasted with Christ being accused by the Pharisees of being a winebibber because he ate and drank with sinners. By extension, some would imply that if you saw this church leader in the same situation as Jesus, and if you were scandalized by what you saw, then you are akin to being a judgmental Pharisee.

I think there is something of a disconnect with this comparison. The Pharisees were motivated by political and socio-religious convictions that were ignored by Jesus. His "breaking" of their self-imposed, legalistic values stirred in them a manufactured indignation. Their accusation of him being a winebibber is in essence, phony. Additionally, the Pharisees were growing with their petty jealousy toward Jesus. They were looking for something to pin on him so as to discredit him as a teacher. This is much different than a church member just “by chance” seeing an elder or pastor drinking wine in a restaurant with a group of people.

A more apt comparison would be an individual you happen to know is a self-righteous, finger wagging nosy-body who has it in for the leader in question because that leader passed up the finger-wagger when he was assigning Sunday school teachers, and the finger-wagger pulls you aside before church to tell you he saw that leader drinking wine on Friday night at Black Angus with a bunch of unbelievers. Obviously there is more to the accusation than a concern for the leader's witness in the broader, secular community.

That stated, however, the biblical story of Jesus being falsely accused of winebibbing doesn't give a church leader an automatic pass in such situations. Even though I would not be alarmed at the sight of him drinking wine at a restaurant, I would probably make a point of talking with him, maybe even let him know I saw him by strolling over to the table at that moment to say "hi".

The fact of the matter is that in our American culture, alcoholic drink has a stigma attached to it. Even worldly people recognize this. As much as the YRR pine for the cultural convictions found in Spain or Germany regarding liquor, they live in America where we have severe hang-ups in regards to alcohol. This reality needs to be considered when exercising their liberty. Not that they are forbidden to drink, but that they do so wisely.

That said, let me present two alternative scenarios related to the winebibbing church leader seen in public drinking alcohol.

Scenario #1:

Let's say you are a church leader, and some unbelieving friends of yours invite you and your wife to dinner at one of those restaurants where several of the eating establishments have outside dining areas that allow the patrons to see each other.

As you pour your glass of wine, you happen to glance across to a table where you recognize a couple who recently joined your church. They are watching you with curious amazement.

You happen to know both of them have been Christians for about a year or so, both of them coming from a hard background, because you were the one who interviewed them for membership. You also happen to know the wife had a serious problem with alcoholism.

Now that you see them looking at you, and knowing the principles outlined by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:9-11, do you,

Raise your glass to them and mouth “How’ya doin’”?
Make a mental note that you need to prepare a Bible lesson for them on why you have the liberty to drink openly in public and they need to grow out of being weaker brethren?
Set the drink aside?

Scenario #2:

For my YRR friends who equate drunkenness with over-eating and believe that obesity is at epidemic proportions and on the same level as alcoholism, let's say you and a bunch of your hipster pals are all dressed up in your skinny jeans and A&F ribbed tee shirts, and you all are enjoying your pint of beer at a favorite dining spot where several restaurants have outside seating areas that allow the patrons to see each other.

Right as the waiter brings you your grilled, skinless chicken breast and sautéed vegetables, a loud chortle distracts your table and a well-known church leader can be seen slathering a big glob of honey butter on a Lambert’s Café sized roll. It is clear from the plates of food, as well as the glossy shine on his lips that can be seen glimmering under the lights from where you are sitting, that he and his party are consuming a large, high caloric meal with lots of breaded fried things.

As one of your friends takes a sip from his pint, he confirms his suspicions and asks if that “portly” fellow is one of your church leaders. Your other friends also notice the plates of high caloric food and they all begin to grumble as they watch the leader slather butter on a second roll. One of the girls with you sneeringly remarks something like, "Is he going to eat ALL of that?” and the rest of your friends begin snickering and talking about those heavy people on "The Biggest Loser."

Are you angry? Upset? Disappointed? Embarrassed? Do you make excuses for him? How do you react to your hipster friends in their skinny jeans?

A Conversation with the Mother God Guys

2011-09-12T05:10:00.000-07:00

Editor's Note: I like to retell my occasional evangelistic and apologetic encounters I have with various folks for the purpose of instructing other Christians who may find themselves in similar situations. Previously, I have recounted my dinner with Mormons and my discussion with a UFO believer.

-----

Thursday evening last week during our super time, the door bell rang. My wife answered and a nice young lady and an older man introduced themselves and asked her if she would like to know about "mother god." Now, I am not hearing this conversation at all. I just hear my wife say "hold on just a minute, let me talk with my husband." She closes the door, turns around and says, "They want to talk to us about 'mother god'."

My honest, first reaction, is to tell them to take a hike, that we are not interested. I mean, we are eating dinner. But my wife gives me a stern look and says, "This would be an opportunity to share the Gospel." So, she leaves me an out: She tells them they can come back at another time, and we pick 4 pm on Saturday. And of course, they agree to come back. I am sort of hoping they'll forget.

After they left, my wife and I were a tad perplexed by their opening line about "mother god." My initial thought was to think it may be an awkward reference to Mary. The gal told my wife she was with the "Church of God." The only "Church of God" I was familiar with are the variety of Pentecostal denominations that use "Church of God" in their names, for example, Church of God in Christ.

My web search pulled up at least four related Pentecostal groups with "Church of God" in their name. I further couldn't find anything substantive with the phrase, "mother god." If they happened to come back, my strategy would be to allow them to define their beliefs, ask pertinent questions about their doctrine, and steer them to the Gospel proper.

Four O'clock arrived on Saturday and about seven minutes past the hour, two fellows come to the door. Both of them were neatly dressed, Hispanic gentleman, one from El Salvador, and the other from Mexico. The one from Mexico had been the older guy who had come earlier in the week. The young gal wasn't with them. We brought them in, had them sit on the couch, and offered a glass of water.

My wife had to excuse herself to nurse the baby, so I was left alone to begin our discussion. I immediately asked them, "Okay guys, tell me about this "mother god" thing." The fellow from El Salvador (who did pretty much all of the speaking) tells me to turn in my Bible to Revelation 22:17.

Let me pause here a second. One apologetic rule of thumb: if a person begins defending his "beliefs" by starting in the last chapter of Revelation, you can be fairly certain you are about to hear some seriously bad doctrinal error.

My "spamdar" immediately began whistling in my head as he read Revelation 22:17, And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

He says, "See how it says 'the Spirit AND the Bride say come'? Sometimes 'the Bride' can mean the Church, but here this 'Bride' is inviting people to come and drink of the living water of eternal life. The Church doesn't invite people to 'eternal life'."

I asked, "Why not? Evangelism is the invitation to eternal life in Christ, right?" Additionally, I saw no contextual indicators suggesting that "the Bride" here is an individual, divine person of equality with God the Father. He then takes me to Revelation 21:9, 10 which says, Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

"The new Jerusalem," he proclaims, "is God the mother." Again, I drew him to the larger context and pointed out 21:2,3 which tells us this Jerusalem is said to be the holy city where the people of God will dwell. John is not saying this new Jerusalem is a divine, feminine being like God the father. But he retorts, "Well, take a look at Galatians 3:26, which says, 'but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.'"

I sat amazed at such distortion and twisting of Scripture. I explained to them that Paul says in his epistle that he is speaking figuratively about an historical event in Genesis between Sarah and Hagar and drawing a comparison and contrast between the old and new covenants. Paul is not attempting to teach that there exists a divine, feminine goddess of sorts who is equal to God.

Undeterred, he jumps all the way back to Genesis 1:26ff., where it reads, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness..." "The word 'God'," he says, "is Elohim and he has to be speaking to God the mother, because Elohim is plural and he includes himself with another being, the 'us' and 'our' in the verse."

By this time, my wife had rejoined us and she quickly clues in to what the two guys are saying. She stated something like, "Guys, this 'mother god' is something utterly foreign to the Bible and it seems like you are building this flimsy doctrine on some out-of-context verses that do not teach anything close to what you are saying they say." We explained what the Bible means by creating man in God's image, how our image is marred by sin, and our need to be restored to God because of our sin.

Our conversation went on for about 45 minutes or more, but we were able to ascertain the following points they were trying to convince us the Bible teaches:

There is God the Father and God the Mother. Apparently, two deities, one male and one female. I tried to ask them about the persons of the Trinity, but there seemed to be a bit of confusion on their part.

God the Father and God the Mother gave "birth" to all humanity. This is akin to Mormonism and their views regarding spirit babies and the like.

One is saved by keeping the ten commandments. We got into a lengthy discussion about the law, the place of the law in a believer's life, and how the law relates to the new covenant. They seemed to have contradictory views of the 10 commandments, claiming at one point Jesus had to "fulfill" them, which they take to mean (at least as I understood what they were saying) Jesus had to finish them out because they weren't perfect. That point was lost on me a bit, because a little later, they both agreed that we needed to keep the 10 commandments perfectly in order to be saved. But that begs the question: if the 10 commandments weren't perfect before, why would we need to keep them now?

They insisted on keeping the Sabbath as Saturday worship. They basically held to the same views as Seventh-Day Adventists in regards to Saturday worship. We got into a bit of a sharp discussion about the absolute necessity to worship on Saturday. I pointed out a few passages to them regarding how Christ did away with the ceremonial regulations concerning the Sabbath, and on account of Christ's Resurrection on the first day of the week, the Christian church recognized Sunday as the time to come together for worship. My take on their reaction was that this was the first time they had heard these arguments.

At any rate, our conversation primarily had these points as a focus, and then I said, "Okay guys, the real issue before us is how you think a sinner is made right before God, correct?" They respond by telling us to keep the 10 commandments. I took them immediately to Romans.

Beginning in Romans 1, I explained the thesis of each chapter, how both gentiles and Jews are equally condemned by the law (the 10Cs), and that no man can keep it perfectly as the end of Romans 2 says. I then explained from Romans 3 how ALL men, no matter who they are, are sinners pursuing rebellion against God and His ways and that the only hope man has to escape God's divine wrath is if something happens to us. That something I explained was God sending Christ to live a perfect life according to the law, taking our sin away on the cross, and and imputing His righteousness to us.

My wife says, "There are only two religions in the world," and the one fellow from El Salvador says, "I know there are hundreds of religions." My wife says, "let me explain: either man attempts to make himself right with God with his own efforts, which in principle is every religion on the planet, or God makes men right before Him with His own effort, which is what God has done through Christ." I got the sense that neither guy had heard that explained to them before.

I then left them with Revelation 20 about the Great White Throne, and explained how all religions lead to God. If you base your hope on your own works to make you right before God, you will be judged by those works, and according to Scripture, your efforts will fail, because no sinner can do any amount of good works to make himself right before Holy God.

With that, we said good-bye and let them go. They were both cordial with us and even asked if they could come back. My wife was very unmissional and said if they chose to return, they needed to understand we believed they were unsaved, ensnared with a soul damning cult, and our efforts would be to evangelize them. The guy from El Salvador took my email contact info, so we will see what happens.

I leave the interaction with these guys in the hands of the Lord. My goal was:

- First, I wanted to let them present their beliefs in their own words, as wack-a-doodle and non-Christian as they may be.

- Second, to ask them questions regarding their doctrine forcing them to defend it. Looking back on our conversation, I believe I could have done better in this area. Perhaps ask a few more probing questions regarding their understanding of God, man's sin, and what they believe Jesus did on the cross.

-Third, was to prevent being side-tracked, and bogged down, in peripheral areas, like haggling over whether a person should go to church on Saturday or Sunday.

- And then fourth, to present the Gospel of salvation that was grounded in the text of Scripture. The results of its efficacy being left to the purposes of God.

-----

Postscript: So after they left, I returned to the internet and searched again for "Church of God" and "mother god." This time I found a Wiki article on a strange Korean man and his wife who teach many of the same things these guys were presenting, such as the mother god (the wife of this Korean man) and Saturday worship (the founder of this group, Ahn Sahng-Hong- deceased, was once a SDA member). If you look at the wiki article, there were some other odd-ball beliefs as well. A friend on Facebook also thought this may be the source of their beliefs. If this is where these guys are coming from, it's the first time I have ever encountered this group, and I hope my readers recognize that our apologetic interaction with even such an out-of-way fringe cult can be effective.

Moose and Squirrel Theology

2011-09-09T08:00:00.000-07:00

Former Communist and now radical theonomist and contributing blogger for American Vision, Bojidar Marinov, says John MacArthur doesn’t believe in Calvin enough for his liking. Marinov complains that John only hits on Calvinist soteriology in this video and ignores sovereignty and all true Reformers reform all of society, not just salvation.

Marinov asks in combox post,

Please provide links to MacArthur’s views of:

1. Biblical social theory
2. Biblical economics
3. Biblical political theory
4. Biblical view of rights
5. Biblical view of law, justice, and civil rights
6. Biblical view of science
7. Biblical view of history
8. Biblical view of money, banking, inflation, debt
9. Biblical view of family, welfare, inheritance
10. Biblical view of education
11. Biblical view of war and international relations
12. Biblical view of mathematics
13. Biblical view of arts, literature, and aesthetics
14. Biblical view of slavery

The Reformers had them all; they didn’t limit their preaching to the church and salvation only, neither did they believe that you “first transform the individual, and then society is transformed.” MacArthur has nothing in these areas; he doesn’t even believe we should have a comprehensive theology in any of these areas.

Marinov goes on to say everything MacArthur has even tried to write in these areas is like a baby-man. Marinov’s little 14-year old girl writes deeper than MacArthur.

Really?

First, take a look at that video. John is specifically answering a question pertaining to the puerile behavior expressed by the so-called YRR. Boris… I mean, Marinov, is seizing upon one thought John offers and uses it as a spring board to write a nasty screed against the much larger areas he despises about John’s overall theology.

Secondly, John is a pastor and a preacher. He is not a religious academic. His primary focus is preaching from the Bible to a congregation on a weekly basis, so of course many of these subjects are not necessarily found in the material he is presenting to his people. None the less, it is rather ignorant to say John has “nothing” in these areas. John has taught on many of these subjects when preaching through the NT if the context warranted it. Those subjects he has not addressed are taught by teachers either at The Master’s College or Seminary and a lot of their courses would reflect John’s position. I would refer readers to the catalogs of both schools to get a fuller understanding of John’s views.

Additionally, a lot of these listed subjects are redundant, and this list can be shortened a bit. But let me note where John has expressed his views on them.

Biblical economics, money, banking, inflation and debt – Mastering Your Money, Whose Money is it Anyway?

Biblical political theory, law, justice, and civil rights – Why Government Can’t Save You, The Christian and Government

Biblical view of science – Battle for the Beginning

Biblical view of history – Where in the World is History Headed

Biblical view of family , welfare, inheritance – The Fulfilled Family, God’s High Calling for Women, What The Bible Says about Parenting

Biblical view of war and international relations – The War in the Gulf: A Biblical Perspective, Pt. 1, 2, 3, 4

Biblical view of education, mathematics, arts, literature, and aesthetics – see catalog for the Master’s College.

Biblical view of slavery (biblical view of slavery? Surely Marinov isn’t into owning slaves?) – Slave

I would be up for trying this...

2011-09-07T06:50:00.000-07:00

But it's the wife and children that keep me from doing it.
Just sayin'...

Not sure what the balloons were all about.

Hip and Thigh

Voddie at Shepherd's Conference

Exploding Stuff in Microwaves

The Other Elephant in the Room

Gleanings in 1 Samuel [5]

Defending Premillennialism [9]

For My Prog Acquaintances

On Interpreting the OT with the NT

Galatians and the Abrahamic Covenant

Frisbee Tricks

Gleanings in 1 Samuel [4]

No Sympathy for the Fat Guy

Politically Correct Dating

OEC On Trial - Biblical Interpretation

Aeropress Coffee: A Review

Vintage Hip and Thigh

Girl Toys

Homeward Bound

Against Kwanzaa

Merry Christmas and All That

Books I Read and Heard in 2011

Why Do We Believe in God

Why Israel's Salvation Matters

Gleanings in 1st Samuel [3]

Book Review

The Invisible Gardener

FBT Updates

Children’s Illustrated Bible Faith

The Gay Oriented Associate Pastor

The Paulding Lights

Defending Premillennialism [8]

Hermeneutic Studies

"Innocent Couples"

Dear Jamin,

Vintage Hip and Thigh

Vintage Hip and Thigh

Debating the Dating of Revelation

Gleanings in 1st Samuel [2]

Just in Time for Black Friday

Cars 2: An Assessment

The Ehrman/Wallace Debate

Gleanings in 1st Samuel [1]

Murmuration

Dad’s Super Awesome Saturday Morning Pancakes

When the Church Growth Expert Visits the Deacon's Meeting

Answering a Cranky Evidentialist

Star Wars Humor

“Into the Wild,” A Review

What is a Zionist?

FBT Updates

KJVO Harmony

Atheist Podcast

How Exactly is This Picture an Idol?

The Peshitta Syriac NT and The TR

The Incarnation and Idolatry

The Protocols of the Elders of Dispensationalism

God’s Wisdom in Proverbs–A Review

Israel and the Language of Expansion

Questions for An Anti-Dispensationalist

The Three Simple Questions on the State of Israel

Denominational Satire

Most Lifelike Dead Animals

Jerry Johnston’s Folly

Recommended Reading Lists

Dispensationalism in Translation

Interesting Stuff on the Web

The Case of the Winebibbing Church Leader

A Conversation with the Mother God Guys

Moose and Squirrel Theology

I would be up for trying this...