Treasures Old and New

Pursuing-Faith: How Well Do You Know the First Christmas?

2011-12-24T08:44:00.000-08:00

Pursuing-Faith: How Well Do You Know the First Christmas?

Buttered Bread

2011-11-22T15:51:00.000-08:00

Calvinistic Cartoons: New Book by Mrs. Rick Warren

God Indivisible

2011-10-01T07:13:00.000-07:00

It is by attention to such considerations that the doctrine of simplicity has been developed, in order to safeguard that divine sovereignty and transcendence to which Scripture richly testifies. Divine simplicity is not the doctrine that God has no features, an infinite tabula rasa. Nevertheless he has no parts and so is not divisible.

Kissing On Up To The Least Side: Triablogue: Hopeful Universalism And Peter Lumpkins' Robellianism

2011-03-05T19:10:00.000-08:00

Triablogue: Hopeful universalism

At A Rose.

How Could It Happen? Part 2

2011-02-27T18:49:00.000-08:00

We can draw from the confessions that man as created was:

very good, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, upright, perfect, righteous, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change, and in communion with God.

Let's take a look:
1. very good: there was no imperfection in man
2. reasonable: perfect reasoning, that is, rational capabilities
3. immortal: perfect state of being
4. knowledge: perfect objective truth
5. righteousness: perfect actions
6. holiness: perfect innocence
7. will: perfectly natural and free
8. communion: perfect fellowship with God

So how could it happen that a perfect man able to act upon his environment would break communion with God? According to the confessions, man, righteous and holy, by the liberty of their own will chose to disobey a direct commandment of which man had perfect knowledge including the consequences for doing so.
Adam and Eve's acts prior to their sinning were righteous simply. They were virtuous, without sinful action. The were also without sin- they were holy. The first refers to their relationship to each other and to God. The second, their essential being, having within no evil as man created in the image of God.

Often the fall is stated as man's stretching out his hand from some inner motive which he naturally possessed. One way of looking at this is to say that the desire was naturally good. Another is to say that man had within him concupiscence. The latter we can dismiss for it has to do with inordinate desire and from the description of man in his primal state, created in the image of God, there was nothing in man but perfect good. The former, then, is the only basis upon which we can say for certain that man acted. But if it was a right desire, created in perfect goodness, then how did man act upon that and break the commandment that he knew perfectly with true knowledge, was rebellion against God and that it would cause his death?

The confessions say that he was deceived. But that begs the question that if man was perfect in knowledge, holy, and with a rational mind and as the understanding goes, the highest perfection of all God's creatures, created in His image, how did that happen?

We might at this point want to reflect upon Jude:

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.

Genesis three tells us that the Devil, in the form of a serpent, deceived Eve and that she then turned and did likewise and gave to her husband. The power of the Devil is not to be taken lightly. We see in him an ability that we only vaguely understand. He deceived the angels who beheld God in Glory and are mightier than man. Despite the miraculous exodus experiences, he persuaded many against the Lord who had freed them from bondage. We see further wondrous powers when in the temptation of Christ he translates the Lord, in what can only be described as a supernatural event, to a high place and shows him the kingdoms of the world.
With this in view and knowing what we know of man can we rightly say that man of the liberty of his own will without any kind of compulsion willingly chose death over life? There are terms we have to explore.

If by liberty of their own will we mean that man without any influence from outside him chose to rebel, where does the rebellion come from? We are immediately thrown upon the waves of confusion if we say that man from within rebelled without any compelling influence from without, for we have the description of man; he was created in perfect goodness, thoroughly. There was nothing in him that he should rebel. Not knowingly, anyway. We are left then to define compulsion.

What must be meant by that is that man was not forced against his willingness to act upon what he knew to be true. Then why did he act? He was perfect in rational thinking, full of knowledge and holy. Then what compelled him? Compulsion, then, may be by means of what is not forced but by what is presented. But that leaves us again at the first step of Adam's perfection. He was able to discern good and knew of the evil that was to be rejected. How then does that evil become to him a thing compelling?

We find that Scripture says Eve saw the fruit as good for food and for attaining knowledge. Indeed, it essentially was good, for it was the knowledge of God, albeit forbidden for man to attain. The question is how does she come to see it as such to be desired for attaining? As something good, she could have merely acted upon her natural proclivities, compelled by them as it were, she does as she was created to do. But, she would do so in direct contradiction to her better knowledge. What then changes that her natural desire becomes unnatural, that the ordinate desire becomes concupiscence?

Whatever compelled Adam then looms even greater in his case, for he knew the command also, and the penalty for breaching it. Perhaps that he saw the woman not die? We can only speculate as to what Eve said to Adam, just as we can only speculate as to the whole conversation that preceded her eating the fruit. Yet even if we knew what she taught him it would not answer our question. Again, Adam was perfect, with a rational mind, righteous, holy, and full of knowledge and knew the consequences as Eve also knew. Even seeing Eve alive, he, having communion with God, that is, face to face knowledge of Him, though challenged, does not answer just how it is that he reasons contrary to the holiness within or against the perfect knowledge he has of God without and also acquires a desire not natural to him. Death has been threatened, but death does not occur to Eve. However, even we in our fallenness would seek to reconcile the facts, wouldn’t we? Adam doesn't, he seeks no answers from another counselor, he makes no attempts at defense of what he surely knows, unlike Eve, or at least it is not recorded. Though he knows to do these things, he doesn't. Why? What overriding compulsion has entered into him?

So we are stopped at this: what man of rational mind knowing what would happen if he ate would eat? How is it that he believes the lie if indeed in his perfect knowledge he knew better? Seeing that there is nothing natural in him that can bring forth such rebellion, though we have the testimony of Scripture that he does act with culpability, how is it that he chooses against all he knows to be true? Some might say that the Devil and Eve caused doubt to arise. Ah, but how so? From where? Adam was created in the image of God and had a rational mind, able to discern good from evil, he knew the consequence, he was in communion with God. If doubt enters in, then it cannot be said that it was without compulsion in that Adam would not have chosen to allow doubt in, would he? As we can observe, doubt is not natural to the perfection which was in the image of God. So, from where would doubt arise?

Questions, questions, questions... the only answer seems to be some form of compulsion, mysterious though it is.

Compulsion in the sense of forcing against ones will can be eliminated. Adam is held culpable. A compulsion which has spiritual affect by powers unknown could effect it, though. We must be warned again: the ability of the enemy is not to be slighted. Something happened to Adam, and Eve, as God permitted, inflicted by the Devil, which caused their natural abilities to be impaired or they would not have sinned.

Then by that we know another thing. And it is the natural ability of the will. Adam was not forced and God's holding him accountable is the testimony to that, yet Adam cannot be rightly said to have had a choice, either. Choice, to be real, has to be grounded in truth. Deception is not a form of truth. It is the presentation of what truth is not.

Johnathan Edwards has deftly said that the will is simply the mind choosing its own highest good. Adam we know was created with a perfect mind, rational, with knowledge and given a commandment to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How then do we explain that a good mind, perfect in all its faculties, would choose against itself unless prior to the eating of the fruit Adam's mind was corrupted by something without? The temptation in the Garden is beyond simple reckoning. It could not have been merely the exercise of debate raising doubt as some speculate, or even the manipulation of objects in the environment by illusion. There was something which happened more deeply considered. And we find some clues in the NT, again.

The devil and his demons can effect change in the natural world in ways that we cannot begin to understand:

They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones.

In this I am not saying that Adam and Eve were demon possessed. I am saying that the powers of darkness are above and beyond what we naturally think and those powers were practically greater in the Garden only having been diminished by the curse upon the Devil. As with the story of Job, where the power is given over natural events and even a person's body, the Devil can be empowered beyond the common reckoning. It is supernaturalism. In that I think is a clue to what might have happened in the Garden. The snake allurement should not be slighted as being less than what it is, a supernatural event which should clue us into a deeper reality of what the deception was all about.

Compulsion doesn't require force. It may simply be the presentation of false choice. In the case of the fall, no choice was given Adam and Eve by God. The choice was presented by the Devil. By some power he was able to make the tree appear not merely pleasing to the eye for food. That is only half the story. It was also made desirable for the attainment of wisdom and knowledge. No fruit was given by God for that, and Eve well knew that to be true. Neither the tree for food or for wisdom were choices presented by the fiat of God's creation. The tree's fruit had been forbidden as food and God had given man perfect knowledge for all matters concerning life. The pair lacked nothing. How then does a desire which previously had no basis in reality come into existence for something unneeded? Whatever happened to Adam and Eve was in addition to, or perhaps a subtracting from, what naturally occurred within or without them.

How Could It Happen? Part 1

2011-02-20T18:34:00.000-08:00

1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

3. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.

3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

5. The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

1. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.

1. In the beginning it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, to create or make the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.

2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change.

3. Besides the law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which whilst they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

I will try to work through these chapters of these historic confessions (1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF) in a couple of posts. In this first one I will just ask questions and give an answer and then ask you to consider how could it happen? An answer to that is found somewhat in the confession, but I am not asking simply to repeat the description of the actions of the subtlety of the serpent, but what had to happen to man or his environment for that deception to work given man's state. There are major implications for how we view other anthropological doctrines as well as how we view soteriology. I contend that if you get the fall wrong, you will not clearly understand the means of salvation.

Think about it and in this first part define the terms which describe man's state. We'll take up more later.

What was the state of man before the fall?

The answer given in these two confessions is: very good, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, upright, perfect, righteous, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change, and in communion with God.

What does that mean?

Considering what that means, how could the fall happen?

Hip and Thigh: Thoughts on the Evolution of Homosexuality

2010-12-25T10:31:00.000-08:00

Hip and Thigh: Thoughts on the Evolution of Homosexuality

Another thought.

Carried Home By The Christmas Child

2010-12-17T18:25:00.000-08:00

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:3-5).

I'm not fond of the expression "eternal security" because of the way the doctrine is abused by antinomians and people who think it's possible to own Jesus as Savior without bowing to Him as Lord. I prefer to speak of the perseverance of the saints, because that expression better captures the gist of what the doctrine entails.

via Pyromaniacs: The Perseverance of the Saints.

Following up on the last post, I am pleased to include this note from the brother man, the big cheese, the master pyro-techy, Phil. My verbosity in the last post not withstanding, another verbal avalanche, I fear, is in the making as hints of dissent appear to challenge the Faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Perseverance, security, preservation, whatever you want to call it, is another aspect of the Faith that is sometimes captured in that pestilence known as Calvinism by the kudzu known as the TULIP. See, when I wrote about Faith in terms of justification, there is far more to what the definition of Faith is than I could possibly get into such a short note. One of the divergences of the variegated reality of Faith, is its eternal nature. Or, as the kudzu would invade it, the P. This thing, having begun, goes on and on and on, running as it were on an eternal charge supplied by the only Energizer, the Holy Spirit.

We have, or should have, heard the parable of the wheat and tares. There is a reason that the parable was taught, and why we are admonished not to judge by the outward appearance but with righteous judgement.

To be fair, even though it should not be, many judge wrongly and think themselves in the right and able to inspect another's fruit. They believe in judging by the outward, in other words, when God clearly tells that it is the heart and not the appearance that matters. The fact is that the Pharisees, like Paul, were Jews of Jews, of the circumcision (an outward slice of reality), according to righteousness, from what could be seen, blameless. They had all the good outward signs. Paul makes his boast about that fact and then... calls it all dung at the very same time calling for a life of righteousness.

Mysterious, isn't it? Not at all, if we consider that a man is not justified, that is perfected, by the works of the law, at all, but by the perfected work of Christ. Then who are we to judge? We are told not to. We are only to judge ourselves, and not by the outward, but by the Faith. Are you believing in Christ's obediences, active and passive, or do you fall into the category of Hebrews 10, rejecting the final work of Christ as the only good and holy thing, by making his blood as common as your works that must be done over, and over, and over so as to establish themselves but never achieving the end?

Security, perseverance, preservation, they're all good, bibly terms. But like all other Scripture, men will often twist them to their own destruction, and thus arises a need to distinguish meaning... and perhaps avoid one word or the other out of a desire not to confuse issues.

That said, the fact is that security, preservation, perseverance, all share a common word group. They all simply mean saved or some variant of it. As in Titus 3:5 where the aorist indicative of the verb sozo (sode-zo) means having been saved we are being saved and will be saved, or simply, "He is saving" us now. It is obvious from the context, in fact, it is explicit, that not only the initial but the continuance and consummation of salvation rests in Christ. Yet, the apostle doesn't pull punches, filling in the blank "What must we do," with the commandment to live holy and righteous lives commending the Faith before the people and by that glorifying our Father, as the Commandment says.

So it doesn't matter what you use. But it does matter what you mean when you use it. If you are saying that salvation can fail, you have joined the club of Hebrews in the book by that name who reject the perfecter and the means by which he perfects. If you believe you are not bound by the perfecting of holiness in the fear of God, likewise, for Hebrews 12 instructs us about the pathway of sonship and the requirements of good works. In either case there is only the fearful expectation, that of wrath. You may well do well and look good, but unless your salvation rests entirely upon Christ's doing, you're one of those who have gone out from us because you are not really of us. Still, if one is of the Faith, he will show those works which accompany it. Here in is the trick, however. The process and fruit of sanctification, is not one that is seen, really. And being that it's the renewing of the inward man, one man's fruit cannot be judged by another. Yet...

Is it really hard to understand the prescriptive demands of the law of righteousness as binding upon believers? No, that is only natural. One who loves God, John says, following the words of his Sovereign, will keep his commandments. It makes perfect sense when we understand that we are secured by faith, because faith does what it is by nature. It loves, it rests safely protected, in that love, guarded in the strong tower of God's love spread abroad in the heart, seated eternally in the eternal throne of heaven in Christ, now, by those who by good doing demonstrate that they are children of God, joint heirs with Christ, known for good works, as Ephesians defines it.

Preserved, protected, secured, guarded, pick your term. Scripture defines salvation as eternal life, as belonging to the Eternal One, and he gives it to whom he chooses. But since it is his life and not our own, it does what he did, striving always to be pleasing to the Father. Those who make salvation to depend on man's character and not Christ's, his sacrifice and not man's, so that man merits it in any way, in any sense, whether in securing to begin with, or securing it so that it is not lost, are simply denying that Christmas was once and can never be repeated. In short, they cannot stand to be carried home to God by a baby.

An Evolutionary Impossibility

2010-11-29T11:08:00.000-08:00

Calvinistic Cartoons: Say What?

2010-11-23T16:57:00.000-08:00

Calvinistic Cartoons: Say What?

The Myth Of The Two-Natured Christian?

2010-10-02T15:53:00.000-07:00

The Myth Of The Two-Natured Christian « 5 Point Salt.

The discussion is not so simplistic as the ADMIN at 5 Point Salt contends. Let's tackle a few of the questions Morey asks:

Isn’t it true that the two-nature theory actually puts forth three individual forces in the Christian?

No more than Christ's dual nature makes him filled with three individual forces.

Who then is forgiven?

The person. Paul repeatedly says I in Roman 7. He does not relegate the different aspects of his person to separated realms of distinct personhood. Rather, though he personifies sin, he takes full responsibility for it being his, part of who he is as person. It is an absurd rejection of literary device to discount as unreal what is being discussed simply because anthropomorphic terms are employed.

The old man will never be saved while the new man doesn’t need saving. Who then shall be saved?

Again, the person. It is to make a false dichotomy, a category error, to claim that different attributes constitute different persons. The old man and the new man constitute one person, Simul Iustus et Peccator.

The new man is perfect so he never sins. And neither am I responsible for sin for I do not do the sinning, but the old man does it. Who then is responsible for sin?

Again, the person. Same bifurcation error as above.

Morey makes the same errors repeatedly. What he ends up doing is destroying the concept of personhood and by fiat the hypostatic union of Christ. For, who was rewarded with a kingdom? The Son of Man, with a human nature, or the Son of God, with a divine nature, or the person of Jesus? What the theory does is to confuse why Paul would say that he beats his person into submission? Why? If there is no contest within? If there is no struggle? If there is no old nature, no new nature, but just a new creation, what is Paul's instruction touching upon? But Paul does characterize it as a struggle against a nature. The reality is that there is a struggle and it is against a nature prone to wander. So it must be answered: From where does sin come from in the new creature if indeed all things have passed away and all things have become new according to such an understanding? In the comment thread is a tongue-in-cheek, but not very adroit, reference to the fall. If it were true that Adam and Eve had concupiscence within them, then God is Yin and Yang, both good and evil, for they were created in his image. That sidesteps the issue. From where does sin come in the new creation, if what is meant by that is that we no longer bear within our bodies sin, if not that there remains a principle still active within man that is contrary to the nature in us, i.e., a new mind, recreated in the likeness of the Son?

I think part of the confusion comes from the reality of what is said here about the corporate nature of the passages in question about the new man, and that individual experiential reality of Christian life that Paul is referring to in Romans. Much of what Paul is saying concerns relationships in the church. Then, what does Romans 6 have to do with Romans 7? To simply state that there are not two natures suggests that there are not two forces as the 5 Point post indicates. However, it is the confusion of terms as noted in Herrick. What is meant by nature? What is meant by forces. What is meant by old man, new man? Because in the experiential reality of sanctification we experience what Paul is describing individually.

Simply, if there were no contest, we could dismiss altogether the terms. But, we need some words to describe what is going on within the believer. Paul's personification doesn't need to indicate a dual nature as in there being twin ruling principles. But, we need some words for what it is we fight against. Should we describe it as forces opposed to one another? Again, Paul's description elsewhere is that of a contest, beating down the flesh with purpose as if engaged in battle with a real personal enemy. How then should we define it? With what words? The fact remains that within every believer there resides the remnants of the effects of sin. Namely, that we have temptations of mind and of body that are evident in the experiential life of every believer. Can we say that it is not me who sins? Paul did. But, Paul was also quick to point out that it was he who needed to be set free from the compulsions of the flesh. Paul's juxtaposition is not, then, that it was not he, the person, who did not sin. Rather his desire was not to sin. He then was disavowing any association with sinful desire as being in opposition to himself. His claim is that Christ has set him free from that bondage that he was formally under. He is not saying that force no longer abides in him or that it no longer exerts any influence. He says:

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Is in perfect accord with what he is saying in the previous chapter. His mind is fixed on Christ in contrast to the mind still fixated on the flesh. He goes on:

But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

What? The body is dead? Paul makes no pretense that the body of sin that he lives in has been done away. In fact he further says:

...we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh...For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

If there is no potential of debt to the flesh, if it is no longer a threat, if Paul no longer lives in it, why the admonition? Why the appeal to patience? Why is it only firstfruits and not the whole harvest? Why the suggestion that the body is not yet redeemed if by meaning that it has been put away, it in no sense is still hanging on? That is because it is a hope, the not-yet that is. The status of all believers this side of the grave or the parousia is that we still find this law working in us, the law of sin and death, in our bodies, that is the flesh, but that through Christ we have been set free from the condemnation of the acts that our flesh, which all too often defeats us. So that, we are more than conquerors, unable, even by the sin we commit to be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. It is the condemnation then, and not the force within that has finally been put away in the now while we remain until his appearing when we shall finally be like him and the flesh is redeemed. So that, in the end the old man will be save as the new man, one person.

And there I go again. Should I have said compulsions of sin warring against the mind of Christ in my members? See, the language of a personification is a literary device to help explain the condition. One might ask with Paul, do I serve sin, or do I serve Christ? How can one not then begin to see sin as personified? Then, we are justified in calling it a nature just as if it were a person.

Above I mentioned the hypostatic union of Christ's natures. There is a likeness of that when we say that Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit from conception forward. Does the indwelling of the Holy Spirit make Christ schizophrenic? A tri-personality. No! When the believer is regenerated there is the immediate imputation of the Holy Spirit and the mind of Christ. Does that then mean we are schizophrenic as Christians? That we are at once tri-persons? Again, no. Then it does no good to try to make Christians to be so because one believes that we have a duality in nature. Yet, we must be careful not to confuse terms. Nature has many meanings when it comes to its use theologically. Perhaps we should say attributes.

We might say things like the nature of love. When we do, we do not mean that it is an entity existing beside the person whose loves, do we? Likewise, we do not think of God whose nature is love, as a being with multiple natures. Instead we think of God as possessing in his person, that is his nature, the attribute of love. So, we need not think that because we call it the sin nature that man has multiple natures, i.e. personalities, anymore than we think of a man who loves as having multiple natures. Instead, we speak of man as a whole, possessing in his being a multiplicity of attributes all of which constitute one person. So, when Paul speaks of enemies within and enemies without, he is not just speaking of men who oppose him, just as David was not speaking of men who opposed him when he pleaded with God to search him to find any wicked way in him:

Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God!
O men of blood, depart from me!
They speak against you with malicious intent;
your enemies take your name in vain!
Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
I hate them with complete hatred;
I count them my enemies.

Search me, O God, and know my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting!

David many times speaks in anthropomorphic terms when describing the enemy of sin within him as him a mortal enemy, or enemies. Indeed, armies of such. He recognized that there was within him things contrary to the nature of God's Spirit within him, things that warred against him and his love of the things of God. And, there we go again. We slip back into the anthropomorphic description because we cannot go to war except that it is a force against which we go to battle. Or, that is to say, an army, and that made up of men equipped for battle. The dualism is completed in Paul's visually referencing the Christian in complete armor. The fact is that Paul spoke, not just of those who as men fought the truth, but also of the spiritual powers in heavenly realms, thoughts that war against the truth of God of which we are to take captive.

There is simply no getting around the language. Call it a nature, a force, make it what you will. The fact remains that there is a struggle, a war against the remaining strongholds of sin in our members. And that is not just enemies of Christ within the body of Christ, nor those from without who would want to destroy the church. We are to take care to ourselves, also. Routing the enemy within where we find him and destroying him by the Spirit.

So let's answer the Romans passages:

Rom 6:11 Why would I have to consider it if it is true that there is no such nature in me? Why wouldn't Paul just say, you're dead to sin, no such nature any longer exists in you? Because, sin still remains. Call it what you will, nature, or the flesh, or any other designation is just other words that describe the reality that if any one says he is without sin, he is a liar and the truth is not in him. The recognition that there is this duality of nature is requisite of true faith. To deny that we still have a sin nature, or that the "old-man" is still active is a denial of the faith. By using those terms we do not nullify the forensic declarations that we are new creatures. By regeneration that is true. But a new ruling principle in us has not eviscerated the flesh with its passions. That is hte work of the Spirit by which he sanctifies the believer. Without that fight we are as Hebrews 12 declares, bastards, and not true sons. Where Jesus struggled without, our greatest enemy is within. In our struggles we dare not forget that. And, we must also thank God that he purges us through scourging.

Rom 6:12 Why the effort, why the beating into submission? If there is no sin there, I would reign, there would be no fight, no threat at all that sin would ascend. What passions of whom? There isn't a him who has passions? Then, why does Paul personify it as having passions? A nothing doesn't have passions, a personality does. That is not to say we are schizophrenic. On the other hand, a person who does not do what he wants, and does what he does not want to do, of which we are all guilty, is considered pathological. Compulsive behavior is a reality. The forensic reality is also that we have been set free as Romans 8 declares. The experiential reality is that it is not yet made manifest. Paul could say that he was without guilt but not without blame. The reason, was not who he was in and of himself, rather, his claim was positional, in Christ. It is in Christ, where the new-man is in its eschatological reality. Not here, not now.

We could repeat this exercise for each statement thats quoted out of Romans. But they are non sequiturs if there remains no longer sin which indwells the believer. It is set up against Paul's full discourse to deny a principle still at work in us. Call it what you may. But you cannot escape its reality.

Let's hear Abraham Kuyper on the Old Man/New Man reality:

It is true that our former connection brings us in frequent contact with him. On such occasions he often entices us by his cunning, but not to our delight; and being only half willing, our souls protest; and as soon as the sin is committed we are filled with self-loathing and contrition.

And this reversal of our affections is not our work, but that of the Holy Spirit. Not that we deny that He often uses us as instruments, or prompts us to exert ourselves, but the changing of our inclinations is not our work, but the direct operation of God the Holy Spirit.

How it is performed we can understand but partly. Essentially it is a mystery, just as much as regeneration. Being God, the Holy Spirit has access to our heart, He discovers our personality, the nature of our affections, and in what way their action may be reversed. But our inability to fathom this mystery does not in the least affect our faith in the matter.

Since the dying of the old man is effected, not by our good works, but by the implanting of a disposition and inclination repugnant to the old man, our own work is entirely out of the question; for our own heart is inaccessible to us. We have no power over our inward person; we lack the means to create another inclination; and when we deny this we are self-deceived. God the Creator alone can do this, and in doing it He is irresistible. Hatred against the old man, once having entered the soul, is a power that simply overwhelms us. Even when enticed by him; we can not but hate him.

The seventh chapter of Romans is very instructive in this respect. St. Paul says, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man,” (Rom vii. 22) i.e., after my inward affections. There is indeed another law in his members, which brings him into captivity to the law of sin; but he has not the least love or sympathy for that law, but with the law of his mind wars against it.

Any other representation contradicts this positive testimony, uttered by the mouth of the most excellent of the apostles, under the seal of the Holy Spirit. He that believes embraces the Son, and can not but receive impressions and be swayed by influences that cause his affections and inclinations to become radically changed. A believer is internally wrought upon. All his former dealings with the old man—pride, hardness of heart, deceit, and thirst for revenge—now fill him with horror; what was formerly to him the pride of life and the lust of the eyes is now vexation of spirit, as he realizes how shameful and abominable it is.

So he gradually dies to the old man, until, in the hour of death, he is fully delivered. God’s child remains the old man’s grave-digger until the hour of his own departure.

Nevertheless he dies to him so completely that at last he loses all confidence in him, thoroughly convinced that he is without excuse, an abominable wretch, a reprobate, and a deceiver, capable of all evil. And when occasionally he indulges in scornful mirth at the old man’s pride and practises, it is not in boastfulness of his own work or of his fellow men, but glorying only in the gracious work of his God.

Or of John Bradford:

For this end (I mean that we might be coupled and married thus to Christ, and so be certain of salvation, and at godly peace with God in our consciences,) God hath given his holy word, which hath two parts, as now the children of God consisteth of two men; one part of God's word being proper to "the old man," and the other part of God's word being proper to "the new man." The part properly pertaining to "the old man" is the law: the part properly pertaining to "the new man" is the gospel.

And finally I add Thomas Boston:

DOCTRINE I. There is in believers united to Christ a new man, a holy principle; and an old man, a fountain of sin.

I. Why the holy principle and the corrupt nature in believers are called the new and old man?

1. They are called men, because each of them possesseth the whole man, though not wholly. There are by their means two I's in every believer, Rom. vii. 15. "For that which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate that do I." There is not one part of the man that is in Christ, but grace has a part of it, and corruption has a part of it: as in the twilight there is light over all, and darkness over all too, the darkness being mixed in every part with the light. So my renewed part is I, a man having an understanding enlightened, a will renewed, affections spiritualized, using my body conformably: but my unrenewed part is I too, having an understanding darkened, a will rebellious, affections corrupted, and using my body accordingly.

2. They are called the new and old man, for two reasons.

(1) Because the new nature is brought in upon the corrupt principle, which was the first possessor. The corrupt nature is of the same standing with ourselves from the conception and birth, and possessed us alone till our union with Christ by faith. And then only came in the new nature, and that made the former old.

(2) Because of their different originals; the one being in us from the corrupt first Adam, the other from the holy second Adam. So the believer, looking on the corruption of his nature, may call fallen Adam father; and on the new creature in him, he may call Christ father. The second Adam coming after the first, made the first old: so the produce of them in us is the old and new man accordingly.

II. How the believer comes to be thus split in two, two men. This is done by virtue of his union with Christ, from whence ariseth a communication of grace to him from Christ, 1 Cor. i. 30. "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." Concerning which two things are to be noted.

1. That in the moment of one's union with Christ by faith, there is communicated to him, out of the fulness of grace in the man Christ, a measure of every grace in him, as the wax impressed receives every point in the seal, John i. 16. "And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace." Eph. iv. 13. "Till we all come -- unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." And thus is the new creature formed, being a new man perfect in parts, entire or having all its members, no grace totally wanting.

Hence it is that the new man is formed immediately after Christ's image, so that it is the very picture of the man Christ, as Eve was of Adam. Therefore the forming of it is said to be the forming of Christ in the believer, Gal. iv. 19.

2. That yet there is not then, nor during this life, communicated to the believer a full measure of any grace, 1 Cor. xiii. 9. "For we know in part." So all the graces being imperfect, though they remove sin as far as they go, they cannot fill up the room in any part, mind, will, or affections. And thus is there an old man left in the believer still, Rom. vii. 14. which is the image of the first Adam, from whom the corruption composing it is derived.

USE 1. Hence see, that the believer's life while here cannot miss to be a struggling life, Gal. v. 17. "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." The believer is like Rebekah in another case, the two men struggle in him; and like the two armies in the Shulamite.

2. See here the rise of the peace and easy life of it most men have. The flesh in them has no competitor. In the state of glory, grace has all, so there is a perfect peace: in the state of nature, corruption has all; so there is peace too; except what is marred by the struggle between the flesh in one part lusting, and the flesh in another part fearing, as in Balaam, 2 Pet. ii. 15. "who loved the wages of unrighteousness." Compared with Numb. xxii. 18. "If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more." Whereas the struggle in the believer is betwixt the flesh and Spirit in the same part willing, and willing the same thing of their proper motion, Rom. vii. 15, 16. forecited.

To deny the duality, is, simply put, to deny the necessity of sanctification and the operations of it by the Holy Spirit. It is to deny the historical track of Calvinistic thought. It is not a myth, it is the life we now must live.

Bloggerites Beware: Killer Filter On The Loose

2010-09-18T21:19:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Blogger you'll never again say Yuck!

Look! Could I have egg bacon, spam and sausage, without the spam?

On another note, a good way to filter out unwanted information that might change your mind is to try Confirmation Bias Filters. You'll not ever again experience the anxiety of cognitive dissonance. You'll always be right about vanilla and can forget forever the taste of liver icecream!

Triablogue: Is God unpicturable?

2010-08-07T13:53:00.000-07:00

Triablogue: Is God unpicturable?

A Squirrel in Babylon: The Caner File

2010-05-12T09:01:00.000-07:00

A Squirrel in Babylon: The Caner File

Germany's Triumph Of The Will: Fascist Britain Attacking And Jailing Christians And Firing Up The Furnaces

2010-05-04T17:32:00.000-07:00

Some may have gotten the mistaken idea that the Fasci/European Empire was defeated.

Prior to WWII fascism was a wildly popular movement in Britain. When the Hitler declared war against competing fascisms, Britain was one of his targets. Fascism was less popular but a growing influence in the U.S.. The military complex may have been defeated but much of the ideology that went underground in Britain and the U.S. during the war years has in the post WWII era slowly leavened the whole lump. Curtailing and jailing for proclaiming the truth is just a symptom of a much more insidious disease.

Fascists Racist Democrats Rally Against Arizona Immigration Law Which Mirrors Federal Law As Fascist Rascist Felipe Calderón Criticized It As Discriminatory

2010-04-30T12:50:00.000-07:00

Felipe Calderón criticized Arizona's immigration law for being discriminatory. How tough are Mexican immigration laws? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine.

Along with questioning Felipe, the fascist mouth-piece and puppet of the Drug Patróns of Mexico, who will do nothing to stem the tide of illegal migration of his crime cult to the U.S, we have to ask: What U.S. Senator will stand up and demand an investigation into why the Federal Government and its agencies will not defend the borders that all U.S. employees swear an oath to defend? My own senators are cowards when it comes to this issue. They are not driven by ideological hatred of the United States like Democrats are, no... they're just cowards. It is not that they supported racists like La Raza queen and hater of all not like her, Sotomayor, no... they're just cowards. It is not that they joined Obama in dividing this country along racial lines for the sole purpose of gaining power and getting rich, no... they're just cowards.

Anarchy: Fascist Racism Of The Democrat Party And Criminal Immigrants Find Common Ground

2010-04-27T07:06:00.000-07:00

Democrats join criminals in the subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Ergun Caner Explains Liberty University Apologetic: Lying Can Be Fun And Profitable

2010-04-23T08:46:00.000-07:00

Search Amazon.com for apologetics

I make no apology. Lying has been very, very good to me.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Ergun Caner, Rick and Bubba, and Daisy Duke: How LBTS Does Apologetics.

No Where To Run Ergun

2010-03-30T15:48:00.000-07:00

Today on the DL: Ergun Caner's Biography Comes to Light, Your Phone Calls (Include Pierre!).

Witnesses Unto Me: Ergun Caners Secret Biography.

Triablogue: An Arminian dilemma

2010-03-11T06:54:00.000-08:00

Triablogue: An Arminian dilemma

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Responding Again to "Fake Ex Muslims"

2010-03-03T12:21:00.000-08:00

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Responding Again to "Fake Ex Muslims"

Pyromaniacs: New Rule

2010-02-04T15:07:00.000-08:00

Pyromaniacs: New Rule

You'll enjoy the whole series as the Tres Amigos go to bat and mercilessly beat the soft-tongued factious leaches of the pomo/emergence that swarm anytime they catch a waft of the truth.

The Contemporary Calvinist: What Pat Robertson Should Have Said

2010-01-23T13:40:00.000-08:00

The Contemporary Calvinist: What Pat Robertson Should Have Said

If you do not repent, you likewise will perish.

WSJ: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

2009-12-20T15:43:00.001-08:00

WSJ: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

Posted using ShareThis

Failing The Oral Examination

2009-12-19T16:10:00.000-08:00

In reality, most Americans probably know of Oral Roberts through a combination of his intended and unintended media exposure. Roberts frequently attracted controversy. Most famously, he became known for claiming to receive a vision of a 900 foot Jesus instructing them to build the City of Faith and, when hard times hit his empire, telling his followers that if a sufficient amount of gifts was not received within a specified amount of time, God would end his life. In 1987, Roberts became the focus of intense scrutiny in light of claims made by his ministry that a dead person had been brought to life.

In the end, however, Oral Roberts should be measured by his message. Though his claims of visions and healings drew deserved attention, along with both scrutiny and embarrassment, it was the core of his message that is most problematic. In his prime years, Roberts was the most significant agent for prosperity theology.

Prosperity theology teaches that God promises his people financial gain and bodily health. It is a false Gospel that turns the Gospel of Christ upside-down. The true Gospel offers forgiveness of sins and leads to a life of discipleship. Following Christ demands poverty more often than wealth, and we are not promised relief from physical ills, injury, sickness, or death. Christians die along with all other mortals, but we are promised the gift of eternal life in Christ...

...But the greatest tragedy in all this is the perpetuation of prosperity theology, passed on by Oral Roberts to a new generation. I am thankful for every sinner who came to know the Gospel of Christ through the preaching of Oral Roberts, and I heard him preach about salvation in ways that were true and powerful. But I can only lament the prosperity theology that he leaves in his long shadow.

The only thing I would question is that Oral Roberts ever preached a true and powerful Gospel. How could it be if the faith that he preached was more akin to magic?

We must also be honest. The typical SBC'er, Mohler's denomination, believes in the properity Gospel, too. It is far more sublte, but just as deadly. The SBC's core theology is one of a modernistic pragmatic paradigm that offers personal prosperity and things like national security if rules are followed, tithes are paid, power prayers made, righteous methods are applied, and if one engages in social reform activism. In short, both the bizarre health and wealth Gospel and other "conservative" mainline prosperity Gospels are all based upon the "if only" of idealism. Far from being an aberration of Pop American Theologies, Roberts brand of PHWG(prosperity, health/wealth Gospel) is quite like that held by the mainstream SBC'er. The SBC's icons, such as Elmer Townes and Henry Blackaby, testify amply to the manipulative, experiential, orientation of Southern Baptist's Methodistic beliefs. Oral Roberts' prosperity Gospel was just another bird in the same flock of performance/reward pop-christian theology, an early forerunner of the current Emergent diminution of biblical truth. For the typical SBC'er, and those who follow the likes of Roberts, theirs is a magic talisman religion, not far removed from the occult.

Taking the Measure of Oral Roberts

As you listen to this, make note of OR's progression from Holiness Pentacostalism to United Methodism. For those of you who have read here about Element Church, you will understand the connection.

The people who follow signs and wonders are, well, as Jesus said, a perverse and wicked generation. They're in it for the same thing... that they may consume whatever they are hoping for upon their own lusts. They really care little about the signs, as Jesus said. They don't even follow for that reason, rather, they follow to fill their bellies, John 6.26. When approached about how they might do the miraculous works of God, he simply said to them to believe in him who God has sent. Obviously not the answer someone seeking for a new Hummer wants to hear. Unfortunately, for so many who have been offered the riches and health they are seeking, believing on the Lord isn't a better offer. Jesus is the full reward and gift that God gives as an inheritance to the saints, and who wants to be seen coming to church riding on the Lord's back?

Hip and Thigh: More Oral

Hip and Thigh: More Oral

2009-12-19T16:04:00.000-08:00

Hip and Thigh: More Oral

Pyromaniacs: Working Clothes#links

2009-12-16T19:04:00.000-08:00

Pyromaniacs: Working Clothes#links

But here’s the thing: it seems rather obvious to me that the way this video frames it up, there’s no solution in that activity to the problem in the news story about the burned up bodies. If what’s in that video is what the church is all about, it’s a no-contest, one-round knock-out punch, and the world is going to win every time.

Follow the link to A Rose and there you will find a post about idealism vs wise Christian pragmatism. While there you might want to contemplate why I find Element Church in Cheyenne to be the epitomy of rank Gospel reductionism.

Triablogue: Hide The Decline

2009-12-14T14:23:00.000-08:00

Triablogue: Hide The Decline

Pyromaniacs: Nineteen questions for signers of "The Manhattan Declaration"

2009-11-30T06:23:00.000-08:00

Pyromaniacs: Nineteen questions for signers of "The Manhattan Declaration"

CAMPONTHIS: THE NEW DOWNGRADE...12 dangers of Evangelical Co-Belligerence related to the Manhattan Declaration

2009-11-29T19:25:00.000-08:00

CAMPONTHIS: THE NEW DOWNGRADE...12 dangers of Evangelical Co-Belligerence related to the Manhattan Declaration

CAMPONTHIS: THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION and EVANGELICAL CO-BELLIGERENCE...the ineffectual intersection of politics and faith

2009-11-24T22:40:00.000-08:00

CAMPONTHIS: THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION and EVANGELICAL CO-BELLIGERENCE...the ineffectual intersection of politics and faith

See also my Post at A Rose

So You Want To Be An Elder?

2009-11-21T09:44:00.000-08:00

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

The Greek word epithymeo connotes more than a passing notion, or a fleeting infatuation. It is the idea of an all consumming passion, one that denies all other suitors. It denies its self-pursuits. It says there is no greater love than this.

I recently heard in an installment service the depth to which this calling reaches into the heart of a man. The selected verses were out of Colossians 1: 24-29. Their importance should not be neglected, nor should the fact that this charge given to Paul by Christ, empowered and worked in him by the Spirit, is the same charge that Paul entrusts to Timothy to pass on to other faithful men who in turn are to do the same. Paul urges Timothy as one called to be a fellow elder, to labor and suffer for Christ in this manner:

You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him. An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops. Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything. Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound! Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

The abandonment of civilian pursuits coupled with the enduring of suffering has in mind only one object: the sake of the elect.

When we couple that together with: "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable," we find that there is no turning back, no laying down of the cross, no removing the hand from the plow once the call of God on a man to become an elder burns with epithymeo. Lest any consider this verse as only referring to general gifts, Paul goes on to describe particular calling to ministry:

For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

As it has often been said, a man who is content to do anything other than be an elder, has not been called to be one. This does not mean that a man might not work at an occupation, but what it calls for is that even those things, eventually, be laid aside for a life with single minded purpose:

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained. Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III writes:

Now the other thing that you need to know when Paul is speaking here, is that Paul doesn’t describe elders in terms of office or status, but in terms of work. Notice that Paul says that “if any man desires this work....” Paul is concerned for the work, for the function of the elder; not so much the status or the title, or the prestige of the office. Paul’s concern in speaking of the qualification of desire is not that a man would desire a status of authority and reputation, but that he would desire a work.

Now let’s get back to the desire. That is the first qualification: he desires this work. What is Paul saying? Paul is saying that the first qualification of the eldership is that a man would desire to do the spiritual work of a shepherd in the church. Not that he would desire to be esteemed in the local congregation as one who is holding the highest rank that the church has to offer. And it is a glorious thing, my friends, to be an elder...

...But the thing that Paul wants is not a man to aspire to that honor, but to aspire to the work. He wants men who are burning with the desire to shepherd the people of God. He wants men who want to be pastors. All elders are pastors, not just preachers! Not just professional, full-time ministers, but all elders are pastors.

So what are you looking for, when you’re looking for an elder in the church? You’re looking for a man in this congregation who wants to shepherd the souls of people. Yes, they have to make hard decisions about budgets and buildings. But you know what? They do that because they love you. That’s the part of the job that they have to do. What they really love to do is shepherd the souls of men and women, and boys and girls. That’s their great desire. The other stuff they have to do: that’s their great desire. The other stuff they have to do. We’d almost have to pay them to do that other stuff, because it’s hard! But the thing that they really desire is the pastoral, shepherding ministry.

That’s the first qualification for an elder. He has to desire to shepherd the people of God. You can see that in a man. You can see that in the way a man studies his Bible; you can see that in the way a man studies to teach the word; you can see that in the way a man commits himself to the life of a local congregation, in the way he attends church (Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday night)—you can see those desires expressed outwardly in a man who desires to shepherd the people of God. He’s involved in evangelism and discipleship, he is involved in preparing to shepherd the people of God. So there’s the first qualification. He has a desire for the work of ministry that is entailed in being an elder.

And I might add that he attends to that purpose as Paul might refer, to spend and be spent for the sake of the flock as an undershepherd of the Chief Shepherd as one who laid down his life for them as the sole consumming passion of his heart. To Jerusalem, to the cross, as the Chief Shepherd, the elder forbids anything to interfere with attaining the one goal, the highest calling, set aside as one whose life and purpose is consumed by a single desire.

Peter wrote:

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. (1 Peter 5:1-4)

John MacArthur said:

...by virtue of their calling and their gifts and their affirmation by the church, they have a responsibility that is different than the rest of the sheep. Responsibility is the key word, or accountability. The Chief Shepherd will hold them responsible—he will call them to give an account someday for exercising oversight. The rest of the sheep will not be called to give an account for oversight. Only the elders, the shepherds.

The calling is not to be slighted by spending effort to fill life with civilian pursuits. The presenting of a bride without spot or blemish to Christ is too precious a charge to have interests divided. The crown is too prescious to be seen as an addendum to the things that other men desire.

John MacArthur continued:

...The Lord has always sought for leaders. In some ways, apart from the very work of God Himself in an individual's life, spiritual leadership is the most essential element of church structure. So it is an important calling.

There is really no more important calling than this. The Lord has always sought for leaders. You can go all the way back into the Old Testament, 1 Samuel 13:14, and you read there, "The Lord has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart." You find again the words of Ezekiel 22:30, "I searched for a man who should stand in the gap before Me for the land." God has always looked for leaders. There is a great need in the church for spiritual leadership.

I read you somebody's description of how a pastor ought to act, and some of you might be saying, "That's a too demanding kind of exhortation for me to deal with." Others might be saying, "Let me have at that. In the power of the Spirit of God, that would be what I would like to be," and the difference is the compelling of the heart.

I never compel anyone to go into the ministry or the pastorate. If that is not an all-consuming desire of the heart, then either the call of God is not there or sin is there, which means the call of God is muffled. Either way they aren't fit for ministry. If the call isn't there or if the sin is there muffling the call, then who am I to call them to ministry?

...this is a demanding calling. He says it is a noble, fine, honorable work. It is a work. It is not just an honored position. It is a lifelong task.

...Paul said to Timothy, "Do the work of an evangelist." To the Thessalonians Paul wrote and said, "Honor those over you for their position," no, "for their work's sake." Paul in Ephesians 4:12 talks about the work of the ministry. It is a demanding calling. It is diligent, hard work.

...And then finally, it is a holy calling. Verse 2, an overseer then - then -takes us back, because it is an essential calling, because it is a limited calling, because it is such a compelling calling, because it is such a responsible calling, because it is such a noble calling, because it is such a worthy calling or a - not only a worthy calling, but a hard calling, a demanding calling. An overseer then must be above reproach. He must understand it's a holy calling, because only a holy man could approach such a formidable task."

At Jerusalem there arose debate about tasks less important, yet tasks necessary to be done. The Elders' reply was succinct:

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

It is too important, and as John MacArthur says, it is a work which requires diligence because it is a formidable task. Now consider, if the secondary ministries of serving in other capacities in the church was not deemed important enough to distract, then how much less civilian pursuits from which they had already been called. Jesus in calling Peter and Andrew said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” This is a defining moment, they were to leave home, family, occupation for the high calling of becoming shepherds of God's flock. They were to be made holy men, set aside, made overseers, not self-willed to be. The task is too precious, too demanding, requiring the absolute attention of the laborer called into the harvest, and cannot be subjugated to the things that occupy the lives of other men. It is a monumental thing, a good and hororable thing, a consuming, arduous work, to aspire to be an elder. But it must be a desire above all else, or it is not God calling.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Thanksgiving Verses - Part 1

2009-11-19T11:57:00.000-08:00

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Thanksgiving Verses - Part 1

See the posts on Idols at A Rose

The Heresy That Most Southern Baptists Love

2009-10-27T09:53:00.000-07:00

Today on the Dividing Line: A Review and Refutation of Middle Knowledge

In one form or another, as a related kind, this heresy of progressive knowledge in God is the main course of most Southern Baptists' soteriology. But they should not feel alone, it is the most common kind of error found and held to by most in evangelical Christianity.

Middle Knowledge is credited to be the brain-child of a Roman Catholic named Luis de Molina. You can read more about it here. Interesting and very disturbing is that this denial of the God of Scripture is held by a cadre of leaders of Southern Baptist seminaries and tolerated as part of the faux unity of good 'ol boys who tend to care more about annuity than eternity.

Obama, Our First Homosexual President: "Same Sex? What's The Difference?" (Reposted, revised)

2009-10-13T09:42:00.000-07:00

Preference: selection of somebody or something: the view that one person, object, or course of action is more desirable than another, or a choice based on such a view.

Why? What makes the homosexual preference a preference? Why would it be more desirable? Or, to ask this is in the reverse, why is homosexuality less desirable?

Our first homosexual president has some explaining to do to Michelle about why he prefers her over Michael. If there is no difference, why does he prefer her over him? If we were to ask his children, what would be their answer? Do you think that O is instructing his girls to be open to embrace diversity in their preference? How about his wife? Do you think he is encouraging her to be open to the possibilities? And just who is on the short list?

The fact is that the reason that a person is oriented toward one and not the other is because they find the alternative less desirable, distasteful, if not disgusting. They view it as wrong, at least for them. Or else, they're neutral toward it. In that case, most likely, they simply cannot understand why or why not, because they haven't given it any thought. Or for peace of mind, they ignore their disturbed psyche about the conflicted idea of tolerance versus their own intolerance. If it is wrong for them, why? If it is not wrong, then why not engage in it? Mere preference doesn't answer the morass of questions. If there were no available alternatives, would the lesser desire then be acceptable? This is the cognitive dissonance with which a homosexual like Obama must deal. He must ask himself, "Why not?" He must determine what is appealing about one behavior, and what is appalling about the other. Then again, we don't expect liberal apologists to honestly answer questions, anyway, do we? Nor, do they want to.

I call him a homosexual because he agrees that the preference is legitimate, a proper moral view, one which anyone can choose. And as he defines himself, so is he. He, in other words, has no reason to not embrace it other than preference (whatever that is). So, shouldn't he be able to explain why he chooses one over the other? Why would he not bed down Barney Frank? Why is one more desirable and the other less so? Can he look Michelle in the eyes and tell her that sex with a man is no different than sex with a woman? Can he explain to her that male features and accouterments are just as appealing, or does he discriminate? Perhaps he is bi-sexual and that explains his equal appreciation of both. Wonder is, if he is, has he explained to Michelle that he wouldn't mind if she were a man?

Denny Burk has posted on hitting the bottom of the slippery slope. We haven't hit it yet, but time is slipping away. One wonders where the liberals will draw the line. And when they do, upon what measure of moral absolutism? Arbitrary utilitarianism?

Albert Mohler has tackled the new pronouncement of The Great Moral Determiner, though I would disagree with Mohler that the change has been initiated by the proclamation of Obama rather than the first tolerance of any such unions in any legal civil arrangement of any kind including the tolerance of co-habitational benefit rights. There should be none. The conservative, historical, moral perspective was lost when the church first made moves to acknowledgement and tolerance of such relationships.

Albert Mohler cannot in good conscience sit by when the SBC tolerates men like Rick Warren when Warren embraces civil unions or other social arrangements that would accommodate the homosexual movement. For that only lends credence to the claim to marriage rights for all. Only when organizations like the SBC stand as a single voice will they be taken seriously. Irrespective of the fact that they have in their constitution a clause forbidding the embracing of homosexuality, the tolerance is still evident in that they will not discipline the power brokers like Warren.

My next post ideas: Homosexual Polygamists For Civil Rights sue Vermont for equality in marriage and Barney Frank defends his right to have minions. Then later, what ACORN might do now that the door has been opened by Obama to import thirteen year old male prostitute sex slaves.

Taxpayer Protest Dwarfs The Million Man March

2009-09-13T07:35:00.000-07:00

A million or more rock Washington

Pyromaniacs: "But" - "Not" - and "So That"

2009-09-09T09:27:00.000-07:00

Pyromaniacs: "But" - "Not" - and "So That"

I am currently doing a series on justification at A Rose. Click on it!

Regeneration By The Spirit Preceeds The Preaching Of The Word To The Will

2009-06-23T07:45:00.000-07:00

John Owen helps us to understand that the Holy Spirit goes before the Word to regenerate:

This work of regeneration is not preached to the will and so it not resisted by the will, but it works effectively on the will, wonderfully renewing it.

The Holy Spirit is the sole efficacious agent in regeneration so that it can never be said that the man according to his own will chooses to be saved, nor can it be said that man by his own will has rejected that which he could have had if he had chosen. Monergistic regeneration (salvation) is not without the Word as Owen also makes clear, voiding the heretical teaching of the likes of Billy Graham. But, it preceeds it and accomplishes what the Word declares, prior to the hearing of the Word.

Russell Moore tried to state what the Gospel is as a leader of a major Seminary. Unfortunately the SBC in launching the Great Commission Resurgence has not first established the true Gospel that goes along with it even among its leaders, as this video makes clear. How sad.

Though recorded in 2007, nothing has changed in the SBC in the past two years. Indeed, not much has changed in the SBC for over a century. Finneyesque revivalism is still preached in most SBC churches. This Methodistic approach, is not the Gospel. Listen as Russell Moore struggles to explain but fails miserably to establish what the Gospel is for his audience:

How different the Gospel is from what Moore represents:

Jesus tells us that it is the Father who draws men to the Word. That regeneration must come before the Word is without doubt as we witness in the ministry of John the Baptist. Even in the incarnation we see that the Spirit generates the new life of the Word and then the thing conceived is birthed. Jesus is arguing with the teachers of the Law who believed that the Word must precede the regeneration of man. But Jesus' complaint against them was that they thought the in the Scripture salvation was found. The answer was that unless the Spirit makes alive and brings forth from the tomb alive he who was once dead he cannot see the Word. This is the lesson of John with Nicodemus, this is the lesson of John with Lazarus and this is the lesson of Jesus who said that no man can come to the Word except that the Father draws him. Paul tells us in Titus that it is the Word that makes manifest what has happened. It does not cause if. Unless regeneration preceeds the Word, no one comes to know the One who the Father says, "This is my Son, listen to him." Regeneration is the drawing which is spoken of in John. Without it, there is no life for the Son to call forth from the grave.

Should Congress Impeach Obama Now?

2009-06-14T15:16:00.000-07:00

The Democrat Socialist Party screamed loud for the impeachment of Bush over far less.

This may well rise to the level of interference and violate the whistle-blower law.

Planned Parenthood's First Church Of The Blessed St. Margaret of Genocide Holds Vigil For George Tiller

2009-06-02T15:49:00.000-07:00

Wow, the Church of Planned Parenthood, who would have thunk it. Catch what the womanish alien looking creature says about determining for another when their life should end? Is she really as blind as a marinated mushroom or does she just look and talk like one?

Of course there was the lighting of candles. Now that can't be good for the environment. Just think of the carbon dioxide released. I guess you have sacrifice something to the gods in one area if you're going to be blessed by them in another. Just think, if they lighted candles for the babies Tiller killed, they would have had to get a fire permit.

Liberals really do have their own minds, I am told. Real liberals are not just zombioids like the weirdos in this video. I've known a few, personally. They're real creatures, honest, not cardboard cutouts like these mental manikins.

This is the church where the vigil took place:

A very dangerous place for candles.

Because abortions are not commonly performed publicly, and the clinic will close for a week, Planned Parenthood ensured the numbed crowd that the invigorating sacrament of abortion could still be performed by using a substitute:

Though many weren't fooled, after a lot of drugs and alcohol many others were convinced that substitutionary abortion does indeed transubstantially grant the perpetrator longer life just like spilling real blood.

Is Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor's La Raza As Fascistic As Obama's Black Liberation Theology?

2009-05-31T14:57:00.000-07:00

The liberal media, the Obamanista administration, and La Raza would like us to believe that Obama's nominee belongs to a benign organization.

Why? Who cares?

Like Ruth "Baby Mulcher" Ginsberg, who is a member of the anti-USA ACLU, and another Democrat appointee, Sotomayor's radical connections don't surprise anyone in this day and age. The fact that an anti-constitutionalist like Ginsberg who belongs to an organization founded by an affirmed fascist for the express purpose of destroying the USA, would even remotely be considered for the Supreme Court should inform us how rotten the core principles of republicanism had become over a decade ago in the USA and explain why it is nealy passe' to consider it odd that an enemy of the USA would find herself being vetted as acceptable in the public service arena. To see the most radically leftist President ever elected offer a blood for the Supreme Court, is only keeping his Chicagoan gangland mob-politics character intact. After all, fasci have a mob-like ideology. That is why it has simply become, "Wutevah", that a goose-stepper would present another goose-stepper for high office.

I mean, when Obama who was trained by fascist racists is outed and it only gets him elected to the White House and not publicly shamed out of existence, should we expect anything less? When the Coneist history of Obama's pastor is known and Obama brags about having been mentored by him, when his association with known terrorists in unveiled or those associations with Muslim radicals who bought and paid for his ascent to the pinnacle of power, when his endorsement by good friend and neighbor, the wacko radical NOI cult leader Farrakhan is demonstrated as no mistake, when his father's fascist national socialist Islamic legacy is exposed and the book Obama authored, exalting his father's hatred of whites and of the United States, is widely acclaimed, when Obama's history is such a sausage job produced by his handlers, when we cannot get the facts about his birth, when no documents of his past life seem to exist anymore except his phony ghost authored books, when no papers he ever had to write himself as part of his law degree can be found, or really any other substantives that demonstrates the veracity of his claims of innocence, or intelligence, it is only another ding a long line of ringing obfuscations of which his regime is guilty, to hide with the complicity of the liberal media, his nominatee's past.

La Raza recently released a statement about the coiner of their beloved name. But again, history tends to haunt the leftists who want to pretend to be kinder-gentler radicals, terrorists and exterminators.

José Vasconcelos , 1882-1959, Mexican educator and writer. He headed (1920-24) the National Univ. of Mexico and, as minister of education under Álvaro Obregón , worked vigorously and with considerable success to establish schools, to persuade the Mexican people of the importance of education, and to raise the literacy rate. For this task he enlisted the aid of prominent figures, notably the poet Gabriela Mistral . In 1929 he was defeated in the presidential race and was forced into exile by Plutarco Elías Calles. As teacher, propagandist, and writer, he attracted a large youthful following, and his fierce localism and belief in Latin American culture as the response of a unique mixture of peoples to a unique physical environment had an effect abroad as well as in Mexico. In later years he became an ardent Roman Catholic and a zealous apologist for the Spanish tradition. He denounced democracy and tended to glorify force and racism. Among his well-known works are La raza cósmica (1925) and Indología (1927). The first volume of his four-volume autobiography (1935-39) is Ulises criollo— also the general title for the whole work, which includes La tormenta, El desastre, and El proconsulado.

Bibliography: See biographies by G. de Beer (1966) and J. H. Haddox (1967).

"José Vasconcelos." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. 31 May. 2009.

Yeah that is right. La Raza's name was conceived by a radical father. The time frame is telling. He was a child of revolution, a people's liberator and fits nicely the mold of the fasci rise to power as a world political force. Many fasci arose in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries turning nearly the entire world into one large killing field. Mexico's near allegiance to Nazi Germany should not go unconnected to this travesty called the Obama administration, nor its pick for the Supreme Court.

Brownish fascism is slightly different that the Nationalist Socialist African Fascism of Obama. Brownish fascism is ethnic based, requiring that only some brown blood be mingled with indigo (native) blood. (Unfortunately for Obama, should they ever come to power, African Nationalism is purist.) What it interesting, just as it is interesting among many black fascists, is the fact that there is so much white blood to deal with seeing that to be Latina, or Chicano, a member of La Raza, is that nagging little detail that being Hispanic means being white-European. It is mainland European -mostly- with plenty enough Celtic to be considered anglo. Yeppers. That is right. The Latina woman, this fascista, who would out think whites, is indeed the descendant of the white men she certainly seems to hate. What is it about bigots like Obama and Sotomayor who hate the very heritage from which they are derived?

Remember, Obama is white too, but we never heard that during the campaign, did we? So it is an interesting thing, but not surprising, that what is neglected in this whole mix, or perhaps it is an intended slight, is the fact that Sotomayor, if she is indeed of mixed blood, which is the ideal of La Raza, it being La Nueva Raza (familiar Hitlerian concept, eh?) in Vasconcelos world view, is indigo. Why isn't the fact that she is indigo not the race card being played? One has to wonder why Obama and the media haven't capitalized on the native American connection rather than the Hispanic Nationalist one. Perhaps AIM just doesn't have the clout that La Nueva Raza has. Perhaps Obama doesn't like native peoples unless he can use them.

Can we conclude she is just another stupid liberal willing to be pimped by the Democrat machine? Yeah, I think we could. I think it is also possible that she is self-aggrandizing, working the streets, purposely selling herself for political gain, for that is what fascistas do. In either case, she is what we have come to expect from the Democrat Party central committee's Klingon mentality.

Beside the fact that it is demonstratively true that Sotomayor is a confessed racist, World Net Daily follows up on some other interesting things swirling around this formerly Bush appointed lefty.

As an aside: Obama implemented his final solution in nationalizing the auto industry. Der Wolksbamavagon, though hard to say, has been suggested the new name of the first of its kind marriage of state and industry, in the United States. This fundamental change in the structure of what constitutes government and industry may seem a throwback to Nazi Germany, but hey, we can trust that it will be a new, sweeter and non-toxic, halocaust avoiding, Nationalist Socialist State.

Identity Politics Returns

Fascists Take Over United States Military

2009-05-14T13:34:00.000-07:00

How far you have fallen O bright Star of the Morning.

James White reports that the military seized and destroyed Bibles just like the Nazis did at one time. The British journalist heard on the video has no clue about the purpose and necessity of free speech living as he does in a country which has none. Our constitution, however, was founded upon the reality that it is Truth that sets free. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Our forefathers recognized that no matter the religion, political outlook, ideological bias, everyone should have the right to speak about what they believe to whoever they desire with impunity; that only where the free-exchange of ideas is defended, will there be peace. It is only the oppressor who fears knowledge.

You can go read about it and listen. Think about Obama's intentions to limit free-speech, and his past, understand the dictatorial point of view of the Brit's statement that the soldiers had masters, rather than officers, understand sharia law and the forbidding of any faith but Islam, and then go puke and chant Alla Akbar.

And go pray, that the Lord have mercy and come soon before the building of the death camps, again. And pray for his peace in whatever happens, because the Lord alone is where our security rests.

Dirty Henry Decision Making In The SBC

2009-05-13T09:14:00.000-07:00

This is excellent advice from John MacArthur.

And here is a discussion of really wallowing in charimatic chaos when following the advice of Henry and Richard Blackaby.

Beside the book that Dan Phillips suggests for comparison, I found this one clear, concise and honestly biblical.

Elders and Wannabes At The Salad Bar Of Blameless

2009-04-29T09:14:00.000-07:00

Centuri0n at Pyromaniacs writes:

I don't think the criterion of "blameless" is either hard to grasp, nor is it all the controversial.

I don't either, now, shouldn't we contrast what it means with what it means to obey the commandment to be perfect? What is the visible proof that someone is blameless in that?

a priest named Zechariah...a wife... Elizabeth...And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

A question, were these two born-again? That is, this new life which produces "blamelessness" was it a present possession of theirs? (I realize the uniqueness of the case, but consider Job who even though he was declared blameless by God, did not know God according to Job 42:5).

I think this opening to Luke's Gospel, amazing. What makes the difference in these people such that they are verily blameless witnesses to the fulfilling of prophecy? Or, we might ask, are all witnesses to the prophets blameless? Are all prophets? And that begs another question, just who is sent to bear witness? To what extent, at what level, with what power and accountability? Surely not everyone bears John, nor is everyone blessed more than any other woman as was Mary to bear Christ. What makes others such: "that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world?" Does it simply derive from the teaching? Or does the Spirit work all things in all giving severally to each as he chooses so that not all are gifted alike, nor are they enabled alike?

Paul said:

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.

Funny how Paul already considered that he was judged before the judgement seat of Christ and found blameless. And if we would judge ourselves we wouldn't expect judgement in the last Day, either. Lets hope that none of the brethren are looking forward to the final judgement to have their sins expose there, for that will be their eternal condemnation if God counts their sins against them, Psalm 32. Paul is speaking in the same portion of Scripture concerning the judgement of each man. But then again, this portion of Corinthians is dealing with teachers and not the laity, anyway. Still, Psalms 32 gives us quite a contrast:

Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

But note that the man has iniquity, is not blameless but is not deceitful, and is blessed, not cursed. This goes along with Psalm 139 and is captured again in Psalm 32 in:

Therefore let everyone who is godly offer prayer to You at a time when You may be found; surely in the rush of great waters, they shall not reach him. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with shouts of deliverance.

This speaks of the time of judgement, rush of great waters. It speaks of the hiding place which Paul tells us is being clothed with the righteousness of Christ. We are delivered and will not, accordingly, be judge for our sins if we now offer prayer to You at a time when You may be found. And what if we don't or can't? Scripture assures us that we have a great High Priest who is ever interceding on our behalf, who will not abandon us and leave us orphans and gives us the Spirit who prays through us in ways we cannot comprehend.

And to that add:

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.

This is vitally important, because we're not all gifted equally. Not all are called to the standard of Elders to qualify as children. It is not the children who save up for the parents. Isn't it the lambs who suckle the ewes? And do the rams protect the flock and lay down their lives for the bride and the children? Do all prophesy, are all apostles? Do all die like the prophets? Do all go to the cross like Christ? Or is there truth to the fact that some are judged more critically because they have been given much. And, is it not the fact that there is the weaker who have been given less, and the more uncomely who we are to honor more? Curious statements, no? And such as cannot be made without clearer discernment about what makes blameless, blameless.

Now the real question has to be something other than the standard by which the world judges things. For if they say "yours is a religion of purity," who is pure? By that standard all fall to the accusation of the enemy and the world's condemnation of Christianity, and if their assessment is correct, the condemnation would be justly deserved in all. The definition of blameless, Scripturally, then must be mitigated by more than mere worldly standards. Differing weights are applied to differing subjects of the matter though not the substance of it. For the man who steals bread to fill his starving belly is not judged by the same standard as the man who has plenty, is filled, and does not steal. But the man who sees his brothers' needs and has the worlds goods and does not do what is right, is guilty of hating his brother because he loves his things more and violates the second great commandment. So though he may not be a thief he is just as covetous for that which will sate his life. And though neither one is guiltless, yet the one who is driven by hunger is blameless.

Blameless is not a hard concept to grasp, but Paul was not without his sin and his reputation with outsiders, and insiders, was not a recommendation that any would want to appear on an Elder resume'. Paul himself considered other testimony which vindicated his character and stature.

So what is the key?

As the very good conversation directed by Centuri0n proceeds on the issue in Timothy and Titus concerning "my true son in the faith," I believe what needs to be brought to bear are the other qualifications of an Elder to help explain blameless. For if it is isolated, if it becomes a bare standard, without rightly defining it in view of all of Scripture (so also the others), it will be a disqualifier for all who desire the office.

Take for instance, the husband of one wife. Does a minister necessarily have to marry? If he ever was polygamous, would that disqualify him? If his wife divorces him (7-8 out of ten divorces are sought by women, more than ninety percent for irreconcilable differences, not for fault in the husband), is he to be blamed? Even if he was not at fault in any way? Or, He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?). Hard to do if the elder has never been married. Harder to do if he has. And what control does a man have over the rebellious? Again, if by no fault of his own, his wife and/or children are out of control, is he still blameless? Can a younger married man with tiny-tots and a suckling be considered eligible?

Most marriages might start out like a summer trip in the SUV with the kids securely fastened in the back seat, chirpers whose needs are easily met. And mom still enjoys knitting and whistling along with the radio. But most marriages, opposed to a problem free holiday, in the middle of the trip, find some obstruction like a bridge being out. Unlike the vacation, with this trip the only way home is ahead. The daunting task of forging the stream with the SUV strapped on the back with the kids screaming with growing needs along with mom begging for assistance, is the typical experience. If in the middle of the stream one is called to ministry, what then? Might we say that the normal stressors of married life are disqualifications? Or, do we wait to see if he successfully fords the stream and gets back on the road before finding him blameless and qualified? And what if he still entertains future marriage with the rosey idealistic romanticism that all youths possess?

So what is blameless and by what other things is it qualified? Or quantified? Does it mean without faults and errors, does it mean accomplished? It cannot be so simplistically defined. Does it mean unqualified success in the eyes of outsiders? If so the church is utterly defeated.

I absolutely agree with Centuri0n. The criterion of blameless is indeed not hard to grasp. It is the meaning of blameless so that it might be grasped and applied criterion that is the difficult thing. Everyone might understand what a wall is, that is not hard to grasp. Where that wall is built, by what right, how, and out of what materials, is altogether another story.

Hillary Clinton: Sure, I Would Kill Black Babies, After All Obama Implied He Would've Killed His Own Daughters If He Had Thought They Were Punishment

2009-04-25T10:41:00.000-07:00

Proud of her fascist socialist ideology, Clinton described the “great privilege” of receiving the Margaret Sanger Award. Mrs. Bill Clinton said: “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision…. I am really in awe of her.” Dogmatically asserting her intention to force her religious views on the entire world the President Pretense opined: “reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women’s rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of this administration.”

Margaret Sanger was an ardent supporter of Adolf Hitler. Her racism is well known and it has been remarked that Hitler's eugenics ideas came from her. As Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) said, “With all due respect, Madam Secretary, Sanger’s legacy was indeed transformational, but not for the better, if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, disabled, a person of color, an unborn child or among the many so-called ‘undesirables’ Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race.” To that we might add if one were a Jew. She was a racist white, bent on the extermination of all inferiors so as to advance the evolutionist cause, including the annihilation of the black race. Indeed, all races of color were her targets.

Clinton tried, but cannot distance herself from the fact that the fascist, tax-payer funded organization, Planned Parenthood, that Sanger founded for the specific purpose of eugenics policy implementation, has as part of its founding agenda, the death of the president and his kind.

Obama himself is faced with a more complicated cognitive dilemma. Having been trained by Jeremiah Wright to hate whites and to work toward the annihilation of the white race, he also supports Planned Parenthood's anti-coloreds racist agenda. Truly, this has to be a man torn. If the whitey's Planned Parenthood succeeds, he's a dead man. If Black Liberation Theology, or any one of the array of genocidal organizations or world dictators Obama is familial with succeed, he's a dead man. What's the first white/black president to do? It is difficult to understand how Obama supports either, but both?

And what about his children? Having cast them as simply a utility like so much lawn furniture, as "mistakes" that fortunately passed the nest test for Michelle so that they weren't considered undue punishment, if the ideology that drives either side of this schizoid triumphs, what will be his disposition toward them, for they are also white and black? How about toward himself? So destructive so far in office, it is fair to question: is his self-loathing so deep that he plans to take everyone out with him? Which side of him hates the other the most? It is so easy to sign the death warrant for those you never see, those to whom you have no connection. Surely, he sees and knows himself?

What is most evident in Obama is the love-hate tensions: I love the U.S., I hate it, I love to have lots of your money, I hate you who have it, I love foreign and domestic terrorists, I hate patriots, I love fascist socialism, I hate constitutional republican capitalism.

Eugenicists and elective abortionists are so alike. They're unseen at work. They do their business in "reproductive health clinics," so like the extermination camp operators, both they and the camps' functions are ignored. After all we call them doctors and clinics, right? They can sit to chit-chat with one neighbor, but never can they speak the truth about what they do to their other neighbors. What goes on in those places no one wants to acknowledge, anyway. Such thoughts are too horrendously nightmarish. One must remember, seeing that we have just celebrated Holocaust Remembrance Day, that those who promoted the pogroms, carried them out under the guise of public health, economic good, and liberation. They share the common utilitarian bond with the thought that as long as the stimulus is helping us who cares about what it does to them. But isn't that the whole argument for abortion?

In the end there is no difference between those who support abortion on demand and those who call for the annihilation of entire races of people. In both cases the unfortunates and undesirables are not considered humans, but things to be used or discarded as matters of utility. Thus my title. Hillary shares this seething perverted thinking with Obama. His equivocation is her and hers his. Only time will tell which one will survive the other.

My God, My God, Why Have You Abandoned Me?

2009-04-10T18:13:00.000-07:00

R. C. Sproul is one of my favorite preacher/teachers. His work has had a broad influence on me and others and his lucid explanations generally bring clarity where other men do not. The video above is an exposition of perhaps one of the most difficult passages in all of Scripture. And on this point I take exception to R. C.. We have to take into account not merely the emotional impact of this scene but exactly what is happening here. Jonathan Edwards said:

Then was Christ in the greatest degree of his humiliation, and yet by that, above all other things, his divine glory appears. Christ's humiliation was great, in being born in such a low condition, of a poor virgin, and in a stable: his humiliation was great, in being subject to Joseph the carpenter, and Mary his mother, and afterwards living in poverty, so as not to have where to lay his head, and in suffering such manifold and bitter reproaches as he suffered, while he went about preaching and working miracles: but his humiliation was never so great, as it was in his last sufferings, beginning with his agony in the Garden, till he expired on the cross. Never was he subject to such ignominy as then; never did he suffer so much pain in his body, or so much sorrow in his soul; never was he in so great an exercise of his condescension, humility, meekness, and patience, as he was in these last sufferings; never was his divine glory and majesty covered with so thick and dark a veil; never did he so empty himself, and make himself of no reputation, as at this time: and yet never was his divine glory so manifested, by any act of his, as in that act, of yielding himself up to these sufferings. When the fruit of it came to appear, and the mystery and ends of it to be unfolded, in the issue of it, then did the glory of it appear; then did it appear, as the most glorious act of Christ that ever he exercised towards the creature.

How so, how is it that his divine majesty and glory shine forth so cleary if the abandonment were what R. C. says?
Let's return to the texts:

For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

Why this if this:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest.

There is a song by Michael Card with the line: That one forsaken moment when Your Father turned His face away. The Psalm said that did not happen. The Psalm says that the Lord rather than having abandoned him never left him. That is the amazing comfort of this Psalm and the one that follows.
A large majority of the Psalms follow this pattern, a prophetic pattern, one that is reflected in the accusations of the enemies of Israel who derided her and cast aspersion upon her God, that is, that God had abandoned her. Even she accuses him and he answers,

"Where is your mother's bill of divorce...I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting. But the Lord God helps me; therefore I have not been disgraced; therefore I have set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame. He who vindicates me is near...

The typical plea in the Psalms is from that perspective of appearance of abandonment. God indeed abandonded his servant to this death though he never abandons him the Psalm says as Isaiah confirms. So, why is it that the typical teaching on the Cross pictures Christ abandoned in the sense of separation from God, when the testimony of Scripture is that he wasn't?

He who vindicates me is near...,

not far.
Other Scriptural testimony to the fact that the Father didn't abandon Christ, at least in the traditional sense it is taught, is found in these:

For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption...I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken...The wicked watches for the righteous and seeks to put him to death. The Lord will not abandon him to his power or let him be condemned when he is brought to trial... Blessed is the man whom you discipline, O Lord, and whom you teach out of your law, to give him rest from days of trouble, until a pit is dug for the wicked. For the Lord will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage; for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it. Who rises up for me against the wicked? Who stands up for me against evildoers? If the Lord had not been my help, my soul would soon have lived in the land of silence...

Truly Jesus suffered the terrors of death and died on our behalf, bearing the full burden of sin for us. By all appearances God had abandoned him, but his final statement and the first day of the week proves the opposite. The beauty of this Psalm as it is played out in the disciples as they view the Christ abandoned and flee, all hope gone, is that they will be corrected by God when they behold Him resurrected. That is the reality of this Psalm, its greatness and its comfort. Christ's last desperate plea is to a crucifying crowd was that they look to the Prophets and see the marvelous work of God who does not abandon his holy one to corruption, who does not abandon those who cry out for mercy, who does not separate from himself from his own. He ends his life preaching the Gospel with his last breath. With his last breath he preaches the hope of the resurrection. With his last breath he refers his enemies, in whose midst God has prepared for him a meal (Psalm 23), to:

The helpless are crushed, sink down, and fall by his might. He says in his heart, “God has forgotten, he has hidden his face, he will never see it. Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up your hand; forget not the afflicted. Why does the wicked renounce God and say in his heart, “You will not call to account”? But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation, that you may take it into your hands; to you the helpless commits himself; you have been the helper of the fatherless. Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his wickedness to account till you find none. The Lord is king forever and ever; the nations perish from his land. O Lord, you hear the desire of the afflicted; you will strengthen their heart; you will incline your ear to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more... In you, O Lord, do I take refuge; let me never be put to shame; in your righteousness deliver me! Incline your ear to me; rescue me speedily! Be a rock of refuge for me, a strong fortress to save me! For you are my rock and my fortress; and for your name's sake you lead me and guide me; you take me out of the net they have hidden for me, for you are my refuge. Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God.

Christ did die, Christ did take upon himself our curse. However, our confidence in God's faithfulness is not founded in anything less than that which accompanied Christ there:

For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him... Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God

Change We Need

2009-04-03T20:14:00.000-07:00

Every civilian should own at least one.

The Majority of the SBC is Pro-Choice

2009-02-22T17:44:00.000-08:00

Is the pro-Choice movement a product of the theology that is prevalent in Evangelicalism. I think it is. Albert Mohler sets the precedence of Scripture somewhat in a recent program.

In an earlier post I contradicted Joe White as to what the basis of responsibility in man is. It appears that I contradict Dr. Mohler, also. But, not quite I think. Mohler also says that moral choice is grounded in the righteousness of God and when quoting Scripture is careful to declare that God has not allowed for libertarian free-will, rather that God has determined what is good and commands man to choose it. Along with that, it is said that God will scatter his people among those in the world if they do not choose life. My premise is, that the world has not invaded the church. It is the sin of false doctrine in the church which has been scattered abroad in the world. And, what we see as the free-will choice premise among the unregenerate that is the basis of human worth in the world is the product of what the Reformers and their progeny so vociferously argued against.

Neither the ability nor the right to chose sin is the morally righteous and responsible image of God. It is instead that which exalts itself against the knowledge of the image of God into which man was created. The desire to be free to choose and the indignation that raises the defense of the right to choose what God has called evil, is the very essence of evil itself. As those of the Protestation proclaimed, the character of choice is that which issues out of the nature, be it good or evil. The freedom to choose evil issues from a sinful heart. The freedom to choose good out of a heart in the Imago Dei.

You decide. God already has. And so I do.

Get the "L" Out Of Here

2009-02-21T11:58:00.000-08:00

Of the five points, "L", the central column upon which the other four depend, is the most hated, the most attacked, and really where the war will be won or lost.

This has been the attack point for those of the J316C. As we approach Christmas (original post), the who and why for what to whom, is a question we should look into when contemplating the incarnation.

Follow John's links for some insight-filled listening and reading.

Remember the Arminian Motto: Just Believe. The Gospel will become real, you are the power behind it, you make it efficacious. As long as you try, you always find it was worth it. Just believe...

Then again, the demons believe.

Dr. James Galyon, a friend of "L" has posted a new much more better piece on this subject. He sums up with:

Over five years ago, Dr. Ascol addressed the question, “Why stay in the SBC?” in The Founders Journal. He makes several fine points in his piece, but I will deal with only two. First, he states one good reason to stay within the SBC is its historic theology, which is “that of the founders of the denomination.” I wholeheartedly affirm the theology under-girding the denomination at its inception, yet acknowledge that the denomination is no longer guided by these doctrines. Just as the U.S. was once guided by Judeo-Christian principles but now finds itself as a multi-cultural, pluralistic society, so the SBC is operating from a different framework than it did at its founding. Not only this, but individuals such as former SBC President Frank Page deride this framework as unbiblical with such comments as, “The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders? I think we need to go back to the Bible.” The pastor of FBC Laneville, Texas, Joseph Regel, commented recently in the SBC Texan:

“When it comes to false doctrines, what difference does the history of the SBC make? History, associations and friendships have nothing to do with it. . . . My question is: why do we even want to walk together with proponents of false doctrines?”

Second, Tom states that reformation was impossible for Luther within the Roman Catholic Church because it would have to “necessarily be dismantled and rebuilt without its false dogmas and practices.” He then adds, “It is at just this point where the genius of Baptist polity shines brightly. Our polity makes reformation always a prospect because we do not have a ‘top-down’ structure of government. Every church is independent.” While this is true in theory, it is not so in practice. The SBC has become a bureaucratic machine with a practical top-down structure. Who is at the “top” in sending missionaries? The IMB, not the local church, ultimately determines who is qualified for service. What about chaplain service? It is not ascribing to the local congregation’s confession of faith or church covenant which determine a chaplain’s guidelines for service, but his subscription to NAMB policies. Board polices touching upon doctrinal matters are currently more restrictive than the denomination’s own confession of faith. This leaves one to wonder what stipulations will be added within the next few years. “Calvinism,” well within the parameters of The Baptist Faith & Message, could soon fall under a denominational anathema and Calvinists will be told to just “get the ‘L’ outta here!”

Recently Alvin Reid has called for Calvinists to stop saying that Calvinism is the Gospel. "Calvinism is not the Gospel" has become the new mantra of the anti-Calvinist movement in SBC. Like Democrat talking points, wherever, whenever, an anti-"L"'ers can, they like clones, say the same things. Unlike many on his side of the fence, however, Reid is at least sounding a conciliatory note.

Enjoy Galyon's post. Insightful.

It's All Grace Unless You Run Out of Will Power

2009-02-17T09:30:00.000-08:00

(Note: This is an old post from my stint at Reformed Mafia. JCT was a frequent visitor there.)

The condemnations of Arminianism from Dort:

Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

For, while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense, they attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism.

The fact that others who are called through the ministry of the gospel do come and are brought to conversion must not be credited to man, as though one distinguishes himself by free choice from others who are furnished with equal or sufficient grace for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains). No, it must be credited to God: just as from eternity he chose his own in Christ, so within time he effectively calls them, grants them faith and repentance, and, having rescued them from the dominion of darkness, brings them into the kingdom of his Son, in order that they may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called them out of darkness into this marvelous light, and may boast not in themselves, but in the Lord, as apostolic words frequently testify in Scripture.

Who teach that in spiritual death the spiritual gifts have not been separated from man's will, since the will in itself has never been corrupted but only hindered by the darkness of the mind and the unruliness of the emotions, and since the will is able to exercise its innate free capacity once these hindrances are removed, which is to say, it is able of itself to will or choose whatever good is set before it - or else not to will or choose it.

This is a novel idea and an error and has the effect of elevating the power of free choice, contrary to the words of Jeremiah the prophet: The heart itself is deceitful above all things and wicked (Jer. 17:9); and of the words of the apostle: All of us also lived among them (the sons of disobedience) at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts (Eph. 2:3).

JCT said:

Once again you display your raving ignorance of Christian doctrine, Twitchell. You demonstrate quite succinctly what I pointed out before: you have no clue as to what the word 'Pelagian' even means; you toss the term around heedlessly, using it as a tar-brush to spuriously incriminate Christians who dare to disagree with you.

Pelagianism and Semipelagianism were not condemned for being synergistic, they were condemned as heresy because they denied the necessity of grace (The Canons of the Council of Orange, Canon 5); the very same canons affirmed that men are saved by aid from and cooperation with Christ.

I never mentioned Orange. To disabuse any who think JCT's claims are true:

From the Council of Orange:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

What is evident is that Orange did indeed condemn synergism. So did Dort. The Arminian position is always in some facet of explanation heresy, whether the dishonesty resides in a well respected SBC hero, or in the rantings of bitter internet preachers. And while the Canons of Orange did soften the notions of imputation and exclusivity of God working monergistically in all ways in sanctification, it can plainly be seen that the initiation, source and completion of all things is finally God's work alone:

Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us

My position has always been that it is exclusively a monergistic work of God, but agree, that man is not merely passive. I describe it as passive/active, acknowledging what Paul taught, that he worked harder than all, yet not he, but Christ who was in him. As the White Horse Inn selection explains, the Pelagian error is more than just the particulars of Pelagius' original sin rejection. It goes to the usurpation of God's work of grace as monergistic. In both the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian systems grace is only that assistance to the natural ability of self-attainment, turning grace into works. Pelagius even went so far as to say that man did not need grace at all. And, as I have contended, as RC Sproul and John Hendryx conclude, as the men of WHI conclude, when it comes to Arminianism, the result of their view of grace and man's cooperation with it simply results in Pelagius' Island, that little area, where man does not depend upon the grace of God as sufficient for all things, but is finally on his own to make the choice.

I hope this is enough to convince the readers of this blog just who JCT is. Both Orange and Dort condemned the semi-Pelagian notions of grace. Again, I refer the reader to Canon 5 that JCT referenced to see that what JCT claimed about it was false:

For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers

And also later in Cannon 6:

if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

Notice, that JCT does not make faith itself the grace which is given. And notice that the Canon clearly states that it is a supernatural faith not common to man. In effect, the grace of faith is the "conduit" or that which receives and rests in Christ, and not the will of man. It is also clear that it is grace that bends the will towards God and not man, contrary to the assertion of JCT. It is not left to man to will from neutrality, but it is the very gift of grace that kills the resistance and moves the will irresisably to trust in Christ.

Our final authority is not the councils, it is Scripture. We do, however, look to them as an appeal. What we find is that men before us saw in the Scripture undeniable evidence of the monergistic work of God in all facets of our salvation. It was the impetus of the Reformation. To exalt the humanistic free-will and the power of contrary choice is to embrace Erasmus and to return to Rome and condemn Luther. Our separation from Rome hinges upon the denunciation of the free-will doctrine; that is, justification by grace alone through faith alone. Paraphrasing Luther: as justification by grace is the hinge, if by reenshrining free-will, we remove the hinge pin upon which the whole of the protestation hangs, the Wittenburg door falls.

Joe White Answers, I answer Joe

2009-02-16T19:01:00.000-08:00

Joe White responded to me. I invite you to read that post and the comments. Here is Joe's last comment and my response to it.

Here are my thoughts concerning the TULIP. You tell me what I am.

T- Total Depravity

I believe that man's depravity is “total.” Since the fall of Adam all men are born in sin with Adam's sin nature. There is no part of man's nature that was not affected by sin. Man is totally depraved, and unable to change his inherit sin nature. But... total depravity does not mean total inability. Man's will is free to choose the gift of salvation. The basis or ground of human responsibility is human ability. Even though man does have a free will, he has no capacity for saving himself. God graciously draws people to Himself, but free will is the means by which salvation is received by faith.

U- Unconditional Election

I believe that salvation is an unconditional gift. The question is not whether there are any conditions for God giving salvation; but whether there are any conditions for man receiving salvation. Election is unconditional from the vantage point of the Giver, but there is one condition for the receiver. Faith is the condition for receiving salvation. Election is “according to” or “in harmony with” God's foreknowledge. God's election is neither based on His foreknowledge of man's free choice nor is His election exercised independent of it. There is no chronological or logical priority of God's election and God's foreknowledge.

L- Limited Atonement

I agree with John Calvin who wrote, “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for part of the world only, but for the whole human race.” God sent the Son into the world that the world through Him might be saved (Jn. 3:17). That's why Jesus is referred to as the Savior of the world (Jn. 4:42; 1 Jn. 4:14). In dying for the whole world, Christ tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9). Jesus is truly the Savior of all men (1 Tim. 4:10). Atonement is unlimited in scope in that the offer of salvation is for all men. Atonement is limited in effect in that only believers are truly saved.

I- Irresistible Grace

I believe that saving faith is the God-ordained means for regeneration, and not the result of regeneration. Regeneration or the new birth takes place at the moment a person trusts in Christ and not before they trust in Christ. The scriptural order is first faith and then life. Putting regeneration before faith is putting the cart before the horse. God's Word consistently conditions justification and/or eternal life on faith, not vice versa. I maintain that it is possible to resist the prompting of the Holy Spirit. No one is ever saved against his will.

P- Perseverance of the Saints

The Biblical doctrine of Eternal Security teaches that the believer will be preserved by the grace of God. No saint will ever be lost (even if they die in a sinful state). The believer is eternally secure. I believe in the assurance of salvation while on earth; and that we can know 100% for sure that we are saved.

As I intended in my answer before, John Calvin's statements about the salvation of the whole world have to be tempered with other statements he made that clearly debunk the notion that Christ died for all mean without distinction. Just as we must literally read the Scripture, we must reconcile Calvin. Passages that deny the global extent of the atonement must in some way temper the global statements. In other words, they must be reconciled. You didn't deal with the exclusivistic high priestly prayer of Christ for the very reason that to do so brings into dispute the globalizing of other passages that by you are interpreted as showing an exhaustive extent of the atonement.

Now let's start with your TULIP. But we will start backwards.

You say that all will be preserved by God's grace, but how so? Is his grace irresistible once saved and the impediment of depravity taken away? And, if so what does that say of the grace given to the depraved who must exercise faith to be regenerated? Is it a different grace of salvation. Is it less powerful?

If faith is the God ordained means of regeneration, what kind of faith is it? Does a sinner have faith? That is, can one who hates, resisting, exercise faith in him? You failed to include the mention of Paul and John who directly deny your take on it. It doesn't matter what you believe, but what Scripture teaches, and they taught that faith which saves requires that the Holy Spirit be resident in the believer before he calls upon the Lord. And how does one resist him? What kind of faith are you speaking of then? Is faith a general gift given to all men? If it is, out of what kind of nature does one act on faith? Out of the sinful nature? Just how does the sinful nature do that? Or, do you not believe that the flesh will not submit itself to God for it is impossible for it to do so? You say: "The scriptural order is first faith and then life." You're serious? Someone who is not alive can have faith? You sound more Presbyterian than Presbyterians. Joe, it has never been so. Jesus said to Nicodemus that unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom. How is it that one can have faith without seeing? Do all see? Jesus said no, not all see, not all can hear, only those to whom it has been given. And if they can do none of these things, with what do they resist and what is it the think they are resisting? Joe, I begin to wonder if you have ever really read the Scripture. You say: "I maintain that it is possible to resist the prompting of the Holy Spirit. No one is ever saved against his will." Again you caricature. No Reformed believer believes that anyone is saved against their will. We believe that God through regeneration gives new life to the will so that men most freely and willingly believe unto salvation. And we believe also that it is possible to resist the Holy Spirit, we all do, before regeneration. The question really is, why do some cease resisting Him? What makes the difference? Something inherent in man? Joe, that is called semi-Pelagian, and is a doctrine of works, if indeed, it is in man were nonresistance resides before a work of the Holy Spirit on the nature of man.

What is Atonement, Joe? Did Christ really atone for sin, or not? If he did, why do you say that he did not by making it what man must do? You have mentioned application. So just what does that mean? Do men apply the blood to themselves? Not according to Scripture. Jesus is portrayed as the High Priest who made atonement, first for himself and then for the people. The curious thing about this Melchizedek, is that when he had made atonement (sanctified himself, see John 17) he entered into the Holy of Hollies and there he remains. So, just how is it that man can apply the blood? Seriously, if you believe that it is you who applies the blood, you have usurped the High Priest's Office. Since our High Priest entered in and there remains until the consummation, the blood which sanctifies his people has not yet been brought forth. The effect is that only those for whom it is intended will in the end be saved, it has no greater extent and none of it was spilled in vain. By the nature of the sacrifice and the High Priest actions the atonement is limited to those alone for who he sanctified Himself. So we have that message repeatedly throughout Scripture, that those who died in Christ are sanctified by him and are resurrected with him, and only they are those who in the end will be glorified through the final act of the One who intercedes for them: "For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised." This is one of those all passages that presents you with an insurmountable problem if all is globally exhaustively inclusive. For if all have died in Christ then, as I said in my previous response, all will be raised with him for he died and was resurrected on their behalf. The result of your hermeneutic is universalism.

You say: "I believe that salvation is an unconditional gift." But, how so, isn't it conditioned upon the response of man? You say it is, so what is the condition in man that makes him acceptable which is not a work? You say: "Faith is the condition for receiving salvation." But as I asked earlier, where did that faith come from, what is it's nature, is it a gift from God which does not do what it promises? Again, you make faith a work rather than the ceasing from work, you make salvation the result of belief. This my friend is called implicit faith. It is faith in faith, rather than faith in Christ. Do you believe in Christ? Good, the devils believe and tremble. No it is not faith which is the conditional clause, the effective agent, as if man adds anything to the finished work of Christ, rather faith is part of that finished work given only to some. Otherwise Jesus lied when he said that not all have faith because they do not have the eyes to see or the ears to hear lest the believe and turn and be converted.

You said: "There is no chronological or logical priority of God's election and God's foreknowledge." Then by whose will will things fall out in time? And how does God know? Passively or actively? If you say the first, that is heresy, for God does not change, cannot grow progressively in knowledge, and I am sure you would not want to consider yourself in the camp with groups like the LDS. The second though will deny your statement. So your problem is to define how it is that God knows all future events if it is not he who determines the outcome of all? Should you choose middle knowledge, know that there isn't really any such thing, it is merely another form of progressive knowledge. So tell us please, how does God know? You say: "God's election is neither based on His foreknowledge of man's free choice nor is His election exercised independent of it." So, when Paul says "...though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad —in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." you instead say, that God waited until they did something? Until they made the choice? Again, you throw out Scripture. Your Bible scissors must be getting dull, for in this case, his election is definitely based in his purpose (knowledge, for God does not act without reason) and is severed from any choice of either child, for they were not even born when this election was determined. Beside: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand." You can make all the plans you want, and think the choice is yours all you want, but Scripture will not let you get away with it.

You say: "But... total depravity does not mean total inability. Man's will is free to choose the gift of salvation." From what portion of man, that which is not sinful? Are you saying that man has some residual good in him without regeneration? Again, I caution you here, that is semi-Pelagian and results in a Pelagian stance, for the choosing must be made out of that which is good and not evil, right? Or, are you saying that man makes an evil choice when he chooses to follow Christ? You assert that: "The basis or ground of human responsibility is human ability." But please explain then your first statement that we inherited Adam's sin nature? How is it that before we were born, that before we had any ability, we were held responsible for sin, if indeed the basis for responsibility is ability? Again, I caution you, to claim that Agam's sin did not affect us (that is, did not affect our ability) is a Pelagianism. The reality is, the basis of our responsibility is the Imago Dei. For God is responsible, not because he acts, not because he chooses, but because he is so by nature. Do you believe that Adam was created innocent? That before he acted he was good? Doesn't moral responsibility then reside in the nature and not the act? Tell me, was Adam responsible before he sinned, or only after? One more time. Responsibility resides in nature, not ability, and if you are saying that moral responsibility, virtue, is the result of actions taken, then I again caution you, God is not responsible because he is able to deny the good and choose the evil, is he? To say that God is both good and evil, or has the ability to choose either, is what H. H. Hobbs might conclude, but it's the furthest thing from Christian orthodoxy. No, responsibility is founded in his nature which is good and in him there is no evil, nor is he able to choose it. So your take on responsibility derives not from Scripture but from some rationalism, some moral philosophy. God made man responsible as the Imago Dei, and he retains the image as responsible even though that nature is wholly corrupt. He is responsible for doing good, but has no good in him that he might. But you say, that some vestigial good does remain, good which you call ability. But the only ability that evil men have is what Jesus said they have, the ability to lie and murder and to do anything but good.

So, is that what you call faith, the ability to do good or evil? Is that free-will, a will that is able to deny itself? Is that the image of God. Is free-will, the ability to choose evil or good, and does God then have such and did he create man in his image with such, and will man restored to the image of Christ have such? Is that what you mean by ability? You see Joe, what you call faith (ability) and what the Scripture defines as faith, are at odds with one another. Faith, that is the faith Jesus had, always does the will of the one who sent him. Has Jesus been sent into your heart to do the Father's will in bringing you to him? Or, is it the case, that the Spirit which testifies that Jesus is Lord, which is necessary prior to trusting in Christ, has not taken his residence in you? Jesus is clear in speaking to Nicodemus, you must be born again before you can understand (see is the word eido, to understand) the things of the kingdom. It is the same message he gave the disciples, reflecting on the passages out of Isaiah. Quite contrary to your message, a man must first be alive to trust in Christ. He cannot trust if he is dead, he must be born again, for without the ears and eyes no one sees or hears. The Scripture says exactly that, that while we were yet dead, Christ died for us, while we were yet enemies, God made us alive in him. Figure that. How is it you say that we must first place our trust in Christ, that is, that we must first be his friend for his life to become ours? How does an enemy do that while still an enemy? Your testimony is the reverse case from Scripture.

It is you who deny the Lord who bought you by making the purchase price your choice.

That Scripture by the way is explained by the context. If you will just read a little further, you will discover that the false teachers were claiming to have been bought by Christ but their testimony and their lives denied that.

Joe White Fits Southern Baptist Moldy Universalist Heretic Profile

2009-02-14T18:46:00.000-08:00

Joe White wrote the following at his blog.

"Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins." Dr. Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS, February 5, 2009

This statement addresses the so-called "Doctrine of Limited Atonement". Personally, I would like to thank Dr. Patterson for saying this and taking this stand. The doctrine of limited atonement claims that... "all Christ died for will be saved". However, the Bible teaches that Christ died for all and that all will not be saved. Thus, not "all that Christ died for will be saved".

Not one verse in the Bible, not properly understood in its context, says that Christ died only for the elect. It just cannot be found, it is not in the Word of God. What is in the Bible is that Christ died for the sins of all mankind; past, present, and future.

John 1:29... "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

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

John 3:16... "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Yes... but who is the world? Does world really mean church or elect? Well, verse 19 says... "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Which world did he come into, the same one He died for.

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

This verse says that the Lord "bought" the apostate false prophets and teachers.

Romans 5:6... "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."

Was it only the ungodly elect that He died for? Paul could have written that and avoided any misunderstanding.

2 Corinthians 5:14 and 15... "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

I looked up the word "all" in the Greek and found something very profound... all means all.

Conclusion:

Atonement is unlimited in its extent, but not its application. The Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole human race (tasting death for everyone). We can look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins." Have we as Southern Baptists really come to the point where this is a controversial statement?

This is my response:

All means all?

Then you're a universalist no matter what you say about application, because:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

So if all always means all, you're a heretic. Even though you say:

"However, the Bible teaches that Christ died for all and
that all will not be saved."

For this becomes a mere assertion on your part and contradicts the above passage for all who are justified are saved.

"even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction"

Well did he not buy them? If he purchased them, then how is it you can make them not his? Or does this verse actually prove you a false teacher by your saying that he didn't really buy them. For you assert that the price of propitiation was paid but didn't really purchase anything. Sounds to me that it is you who deny that the Lord actually buys anyone, which is what the false teachers say, namely, that his purchase really wasn't a purchase at all. And you seem to neglect the opening of this letter:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

without noticing that the promises are what assign the efficacy of the purchase, and not its acceptance or rejection. And you seem not to understand what it means to be an heir, adopted as a purchased inheritance. Heirs my friend are limited by the covenant of promise, one which Paul says was made before the beginning of time. You know, as in the decree which Dr. Allen does not like to speak about?

"Was it only the ungodly elect that He died for? Paul could have written that and avoided any misunderstanding."

Or, he might have expected that you have read the rest of what he wrote, or at least John 17.

Or, it could have been written this way so that you would fit into the category that Peter describes:

just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Or, do you deny that God sends such strong delusion that some will believe a lie? And why would God do such a thing if he desires all to come to him, and why didn't Jesus pray for the world, if world means whosoever?

In your chop and paste job you quote 2 Corinthians 5:14 and 15, but why not include: For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive?

And why not mention that if indeed all died in Christ, all will live without exception if all means all always. Is it because then you would reveal that you are indeed a universalist? For the passage out of 2 Corinthians proves too much for your assertion that not all will be saved. Because this verse asserts exactly what you deny, namely that all those who died in Christ also are raised with him, and that it was by the vicarious actions of Christ alone that the salvation of only those who died in him are raised. And if all mankind without exception died in him, then all without exception are of the resurrection.

Yes you can:

...look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins."

And they will agree, for none of them believe that they will suffer in hell for eternity, but rather, they believe that God will not let any one go unsaved. Yep, go ahead, preach universalism even while you deny that it is and see which part of your message they believe.

Your position is heresy, and if it is the same which PP holds, he is a heretic too.

You have made the assertion in your post by quoting 2 Peter 2:1 that we who believe in the historic SBC position over against your position, are heretics, so don't feel slighted if I return the favor by making you one of those who twist the Scripture to their own destruction.

Wade Burleson Accuses Patterson Of Persecuting Calvinists

2009-02-03T18:12:00.000-08:00

Wade Burleson posted this at his site:

Yesterday Dr. Paige Patterson met with professors in the theology school at SWBTS and implied the seminary would be letting go the Calvinist professors from the seminary, claiming that the lack of funds and the need to reduce faculty as the rationale for the impending releases. Odd, however, was the seemingly chosen method of reduction. It was not years of service, nor even the performance of the professors, but rather, administration sought to ascertain just who on the faculty were avowed "tulip" men, and those are the ones being let go. Some of the professors present at the meeting included men who specifically informed administration of their beliefs at the time of their hiring, and they were told at the time their beliefs were not a problem.

But it seems Calvinism is a problem to the powers that be at SWBTS. At least one professor from the philosophy department, himself on the brink of release, was present. The professors faced a grilling as to their soteriological belief system. They were asked to declare how many points of Calvinism to which they ascribed, and an even more penetrating series of questions were posed to that unfortunate soul who had the temerity to say "four" or "five" points.

Historically, dismissals at SWBTS have taken the backdoor approach of "You have a year to find a job," but the rough economic environment might speed that process up just a tad for these tulip men. Here's hoping they can make it through the spring.

Of course, it is the prerogative of the SWBTS President to release whomsoever he will, but the forced, imminent departure of Calvinists from SWBTS illustrates just how far we have come since ideologues, who can't handle dissent, have taken charge of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

With a nice picture too:

I was just wondering how this might relate to Mohler's cleaning house at Southern?

If he could require his faculty to adhere to a certain confession of faith to remain viable teachers, why not Patterson? And how is it that a president of a seminary is an ideologue in charge of the Southern Baptist Convention?

I am not really sure what confession Patterson would require adherence to, the Statement of Faith posted at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's site is clearly anti-Calvinistic and clearly goes beyond the BFM. However, doesn't the school have the right to require its professors to hold to whatever it decides is proper? And if they do, can't Patterson do with them what Mohler did at Southern?

The questions embedded here are: Don't the several SBC entities have the right to draw up for themselves Confessions Of Faith and adopt their own by-laws? Don't they have the right to define employee policy? Can't they operate independently of the SBC as far as policy goes? And, if it isn't this way, what does that say about the BFM's spirit of autonomy and/or the SBC's own by-laws? Don't they allow for each entity to craft for themselves independently of the other entities such policies as they see fit?

Wade might well have the inside track on this, but so what? Not that I agree with it, but what I am questioning is a fundamental that I believe is upheld in the by-laws of the SBC, namely, that the SWBTS can adopt such policies as it sees fit.

The SWBTS posted Statement Of Faith, as I said, is decidedly anti-Calvinistic, and over against SBTS (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) which requires the Abstracts be held to, SWBTS requires adherence to the BFM. The problem is obvious. The BFM is wide enough to include anyone, and narrow enough to exclude all depending on who is reading it. Mohler's institution goes beyond it and doesn't require his faculty fielty to the BFM. Precisely because of it, SWBTS can claim their exclusionary policies as founded within the BFM and being an independent agency of the SBC according to the SBC Constitution and by-laws, the institution is free to interpret the BFM as it will and construct policy ad hoc at any time, as Mohler did.

Doesn't this mean that Patterson merely needs the political backing of his board to make policy? Now depending upon what their executive council decides, it is the very freedom that SBC exalts, i.e. local autonomy, which would allow them to take steps to exclude.

It really doesn't matter, then. The SBC is a political organization by necessity of its stated purpose. It is not a church, nor a denomination, so in reality the Bible has nothing at all to do with the structure of the organization, or its organs, or its Faith and Message, no matter how much the Identifiers might claim it does (those Identifiers include Wade who has his own vision of Baptist Identity). The SBC's children, the various institutions it births not its churches, likewise, operate on a political, not Biblical basis. This is the nature of the beast. When political cooperatives are established, and it is by majoritarian rule that they operate, we should not be surprised when they resemble the secular state, should we? Nor should we be surprised if the leaders act like a politically motivated priesthood class, lording over others by force of numbers.

Let SWBTS do what it will, they have the right to do so. And, if you are a member of that institution, then do the political thing; get active, and advocate and take your political lumps as any boxer would who braves the ring.

Now that is what I see Wade doing here. But, let's not be naive. For Wade to get his way will not vindicate Scripture. It will only vindicate Wade's political cause. (On the principle of defending the construct of the SBC institution, I think Wade is right).

The SBC and Patterson-like-Baptists, do what they do from the motive of thinking themselves right. From my perspective of Patterson's SWBTS's quoting of Hobbs in his school's confession, I would not even consider him orthodox. The fact remains, however the reason that he and others do what they do has nothing to do with the Bible. It has to do with politics, and nothing else. Not one of these men will say that it is defense of the faith for which they fight, for to do that would be to deny the very basis of their freedom, the BFM. For to say that what they do is Scriptural, would be to put others in the camp of being unscriptural. If you ask them, if what they believe is the only truth, the answer you will get will be, no (for them it is as the BFM states, only a matter of opinions by consensus). For they know, that to say that theirs is the only truth, is to put themselves at odds with the BFM. Not one of these men believe the BFM is the truth, and wholly the truth, and nothing but the truth, or they would say so, but to do so, would argue against that very document.

What this controversy over Calvinism, or of any other debates in the halls of the SBC, comes down to is a matter of men's opinions. And he who wins the day, gets the pay. And a spineless lot of men they are, really- politically, if not profitably, motivated. I think they all hope that theirs will be the next statue at the Convention site. Opinions, opinions, everywhere, and not a vertebrae to spare!

I am blown away that many SBC folks can say that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are first tier matters and say that soteriology is tertiary. What an inversion, what a perversion. What is betrayed by the angst shown against Calvinism is the fact that its detractors do think it first tier, or they would not fight so viciously against it. Allen et. al. attacks, Patterson confessional straw men, you name them, they believe the Doctrines of Grace to be of the devil, and most certainly believe them to be first tier, or they would not fight. But, the politics of the SBC will not allow them to simply declare that they are unbiblical. Instead, it is through the institutions concocted by the Convention, that they do their dirty deeds. They could never get a vote on the floor calling the very foundations of the SBC false, so they do what they do behind the doors of their variously erected power platforms, be they the IMB, NAMB, or the Seminaries.

Convention Resolutions have the force of used toilet paper, and they know it. Though they would hope for changes in the Constitution and by-laws, those are much harder to accomplish. For those who think that inerrancy is fundamental to the SBC, better check again. Inerrancy does not show up in the Constitution or by-laws as a rule of practice as far as I could tell. If anyone can show me where the BFM is anything more than a matter of resolution, I would be grateful to know.

What does this mean. As, I said so what? The SBC is all about power politics, and the freedoms allowed by its own by-laws set up this very thing. It really is not abuse of power, it is just simple-minded bigoted pride, that says, "My way or the highway", and offers no Biblical reasoning for its actions. Majoritarian rule, not Biblical authority, is the "SBC my-way".

Let me quote Mohler: "If you're going to hire a seminary professor, you want the one who most comprehensively embraces the truth taught by the Scripture and embraced by this denomination," rather than "those who merely meet the most basic requirements..."

"That means that you would expect and you should demand that the presidents of your seminaries, as they do, and the boards of your seminaries, as they do, take that responsibility seriously to inquire of anyone who would teach at our seminaries what they believe on any conceivable issue to make sure that there be no error, that there be no heresy, that there be no lurking misconceptions that would do injury to the next generation of Christian preachers..."

"I promise you that we are guided by the Baptist Faith and Message as we envision any issue that comes before us, as we envision the hiring process and the establishment of policies within not only The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, but all of our seminaries..."

Mohler is justified in this and laudably so, for it is only right that the leaders of the various institutions insist that their employees are as much in accord with the institution's vision: "that we are guided by the Baptist Faith and Message as we envision."

Mohler's take on the BFM is not Patterson's, as we all should know. They hold to polar opposite soteriologies. Each heads an institution of the SBC, and each with the consent of their respective boards can formulate the hiring and retention policies of each according to their whims. Or as Mohler says, "as we envision."

Such is life in the SBC.

Another Blasphemous Heretical Southern Baptist Offers Another Blasphemous Heretical Prayer For The Secular State Religion

2009-01-21T16:31:00.000-08:00

Lot's of hubbub over the Southern Baptist prayer at the coronation of Obama.

There are many disturbing things about this prayer.

Many good observations were made at Team Pyro.

I bounced off a couple of them and this is what follows:

And when he mentioned Jesus as "the one who changed my life," he gave a testimony to a billion people, and an invitation to hear more.

You mean Joel Osteen's religion is the Gospel?

I thought that Jesus came to destroy our lives, not change them, and to give us his life, which is unchangeable. Unfortunately, what Warren offered in this is his own tired version of a gospel that is not the Gospel. This was, "find your purpose," not repent and believe. Jesus changed his life? How so, from being a middle-class, Hawaiian-shirted yuppie, positive-confessionalist to being an upper-class, well-fed, well-rounded, Hawaiian-shirted, movin' and shakin', successful disciple of Schuller? What happened to the Christ who saves to new life rather than the Christ who is a forty-day reform program? From what was Warren changed? In all appearances, Warren is just another opportunistic Califorian newage guru.

Warren did a great disservice to the church by affirming in the minds of people that his conservative progressive ethics are the center of his faith, not the Faith. What he gave the people was an alternative pragmatic religion that has produced positive results (at least in his case). And of course, don't all prosperity teachers teach "look at what Christ did for me" all the while claiming it is all about Christ? He offered, not the exclusive way, but just another way, his shtick: "try Jesus for sixty days, or your money back." Sheesh...

We remember Warren's heretical responses to Colmes:

What happened to:

And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead...The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.

An uncompromising Christian, if Warren is a believer at all, would not get such an invitation from Obama. Beside being a carefully crafted prayer, it was filtered. Obama's chump handlers sifted what he wrote, of that no one should doubt. So there was no equal opportunity for just anyone to be selected to give that prayer, which is why it was so benign. It was written out, carefully censured, and he read it; the officiated prayer allowed by his overseer. It was not a prayer of the heart, not a prayer lead by the Holy Spirit in the sense of one being brought before kings who in the hour are given the words of the testimony. Nah... it was as phony as Obama himself, because it was O.

Warren could have...

For my part he could have mentioned the true hinge of history, but I doubt that would have garnered applause. He could have profoundly challenged people to grasp the true hope and the light of mankind... He could have...

...we didn't expect that he would have, though. Or did we?

where a son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership

Really? His father entered the U.S. on an educational visa, retained his Kenyan citizenship and returned to join the nationalist socialist government that bought and paid for him and his education. He never immigrated, so, either Warren is a liar, or has no clue about history (I bank on the first because Warren is no idiot, but a shrewd manipulater as his books and ministry demonstrate). Obama knows the history, but Obama, too, is a shrewd political player. He has not yet denounced his father's fascism, so one must question what great hinge of history this is, except that for the first time in America's history we have a man who has trumpeted the fascist rhetoric of his father and associates and has never separated himself from their ideology. Because it is not politically correct, no one dares say a word for fear of being labeled a racist. And Warren furthered the deception that the pop media offered as the profile we know as agent O.

But this is not about Obama, but Warren, and not about the prayer, but the man who prayed it. For most who heard it it makes little difference who would have prayed it, but the man who did pray it stands as, for rightly or wrongly perceived reasons, the exemplar of orthodox Christianity in the mind's eye of millions if not billions of people.

Didn't anyone notice that Obama was not the son of a immigrant? I haven't seen it anywhere. Instead, people a centered either on how Warren boldly mentioned Jesus, or how blandly he did.

It's just a side note... I guess.

What an historical door might have slammed shut on that propagandized hinge had Warren said that Obama was the son of a Pan-Africanist Nationalist Socialist (for no other parallel: an African Nazi), or that for twenty years Obama was mentored by a pastor who likewise is a Pan-Africaner type black nationalist liberationist who spouted the white genocidal racist ideology of Cone, and despite his past, O was still able to ascend to the presidency without ever having to denounced either. Just think if Warren would have called Obama to repentance for having lied to the American people about his heritage and his beliefs...

Now that would have been a prayer in truth and real history.

Michelle said:

This is a point of healing that has yet to occur within the black community itself as well as among the races. I think that Dr. Lowry was ill-advised to use this in his prayer because this basic understanding of what is meant is something that a black person would better resonate with, simply beacuse we happen to know the history of it better.

This poem, however, is not what appalled me about his prayer. The assumption that we can "seek God's will" properly in a church, mosque and temple...that's what put me over the edge with him...

But his racism should have. The fact that the racial divide is being swept under the rug by either denial of pertinent facts about Obama's back-ground and beliefs, or by Lowry's crass crudeness as being acceptable within the bounds of prayer, legitimizes such activities, especially when brought to the fore by the token white evangelical guy. Lies in the name of Christ, or fronting crude racist rhetoric is an offence against God and should not be shelved simply because it is PC to do so. Being shut-up about truth because Obama is a man of color is just as racist as the overt case. Both Lowry and Warren joined O in furthering racism, not healing the divide.

Michelle, nations are all abuzz about this inauguration because they think it can be used as an example to heal their own racial divides. Now get this, it is not between major racial divisions, necessarily, but between ethnics. It is ethnic divisions, of the kind like the Hutu against Tutsi, in central Africa. And kind of like between Judah and Israel, or Jews and Samaritans. Or, it could be characterized as the racial division between Al Sharpton and Obama. What a opportunity was missed to proclaim the total depravity of man and to acknowledge that human sin will always produce racism because the heart of man without Christ is filled with hate and not the love of others created in God's image.

As the Rev Al might say, Obama doesn't have the right qualifications to represent the race... not being of plantation stock. Rev Al's "He's not black like me..." represents racism, and so does Obama's election, as does this prayer through falsification and denial. Race was Obama's edge in victory, not his fitness for office. When race is the driving force in an election, what should we call it? He will go down in history, as factually, the first multi-racial US President elected by an overtly racist electorate. And that is the truth. Far from being the binding of wounds, Obama's victory was by the color of his skin, a polar opposite from King's speech, and nothing less than a widening of the racial divide by that fiat. It would have been far better to tell the truth in "the Name of Jesus."

His administration has already come out and said that the economic stimulus package, when it come to infra-structure improvements, will not be for the average "white" construction worker. Hold on, there will be more to come and and driven by a pay-to-play racial preferencing like this country has never known.

Warren's disengenuous approach and continued fabrication of history makes for good Christian prayer?

Listen children, this was no signal of victory over racialism. If it had have been, race would not have been an issue to enunciate, and there would have been no reason to, ahem, color the facts. If Obama truly wanted race to subside as the issue, he should have requested silence on the matter. Why, because, Christ, when it comes to the matter of the race, is its (singular) head, and he is not divided. To enunciate race rather than qualifications (character is King) for office, brings the target in clear focus that this was indeed an election of a race and not a person created in the image of God.

From USA Today:

Come on. It was such a fantastic experience for me to be able to say out loud that I love America and not be called an Uncle Tom. That I can stand out, and I can say out loud that I love this country and not get funny looks.

I don't think we are African Americans, Irish Americans or Japanese Americans anymore. I think Americans are a new race of people. We are Americans of African descent. We are Americans of Irish descent.

You're right Sola, Will Smith will be called what he thinks he will not. He is also right in what he has said. He recognized what we know about the constitution; that it contained the emancipation as promised and that given longevity it would, even without civil war or unrest, produce the results that it has. That is what is so great about its crafting, as Smith relates. How astute an observation that even a liberal like Mr. Smith would connect the dots between "We The People...All men are created equal," and recognize that in time, ideals seeded into it would be fruited and realized in season.

But, that doesn't sound true among the rabble-rousers. They still offer the false picture that the Constitution was a racist document. For them, like the carpet baggers of old, race has been a lucrative business. Perhaps that was the real motivation behind the selection of the Lincoln Bible, eh? Such is the flipflop of history that the Democrats' exploitation of blacks is the means of profit where it once was the Republicans'. I don't expect that they will want to quit cashing in until it starts costing more than the dividends it pays.

Why?

2009-01-01T13:35:00.000-08:00

When asked why one chooses Christ and another does not the universal answer from the Arminian is because:

When all is said and done your salvation is up to you:

But that is fraught with:

The mystery of human love still baffles minds as unsolvable. Why? What is it that takes the heart and hurls it over a cliff headlong? How is it that such coarse a smith's hand holds a flower's stem and the cold steel voice becomes as soft as petals and as pleasing as lavender in mist?

Just because? It's up to you? We don't know what love is? Nah!

What love is this? It is a love that gives us a new heart which is spread abroad with the love of God:
So it is now my cause to show that this is exactly the same case for those being regenerated. They choose Christ because they have a new heart. I will demonstrate that the choice to believe must spring from a heart and nature that loves Christ if it is to be a faith that is pleasing to Him. Further the prophet Ezekiel said the result of giving the new heart is that is causes his people to walk in His ways. In other words, there is no heat without a fire, there is no sight without an eye; there is no hearing without an ear; and there is no believing without a new heart. Belief is what is required in the New Covenant and belief is what characterizes those who have been born again (1 John 5:1). We believe the gospel because it is now in our nature to love Christ and see his beauty and excellence. Our natural hostility has been disarmed because it was replaced by another affection. Now to all those who choose Christ do so because their new nature compels them to. A regenerate person never resists the desire to believe. He believes because he wants to and cannot do otherwise.

That's what love is.

Feed My Sheep

2008-12-09T19:34:00.000-08:00

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits.

Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!

For He Who Sanctifies And Those Who Have Been Sanctified Are One

2008-12-04T17:32:00.000-08:00

With the brouhaha over false allegations of heresy hurled at James White came the false claim that Calvin did not teach a limited atonement. Though this might seem a declension from the study of the subject of the atonement in Hebrews, it is not really. In John Calvin's sermon The Call to Witness there are three things to take note of: 1. That there is a definite purchase of an inheritance and the blood of Christ is not shed in vain as David Allen would have us believe. 2. That the object of that purchase has been perfected from before the beginning of time. 3. That the preaching of election is not to be neglected, for it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

David Allen Is A Roman Catholic

2008-12-02T17:30:00.000-08:00

Yes, you heard it here first. His discription of how one is saved, is Roman Catholic. James White nails it. David Allen has over-thrown the protestant reformation and is wanting to join the SBC to Rome.

David Allen Defends His Accusations Against James White

2008-11-24T19:48:00.000-08:00

Now the only thing that remains is for Allen to prove White is a hyper-Calvinist. And if he doesn't... will there be a forthcoming apology or repentance on the part of the anti-Calvinists like Allen? Will there? Will it be admitted that it is Allen who has attacked, and wrongly, White and the foundations of the SBC.

For Allen to sequester White as just a Baptist is ludicrous. From my understanding White is a former SBC'er and the church where he is an elder is more historic SBC than Allen's alien majortitarian version. Allen himself does not represent "orthodox" historic Southern Baptistism, let alone historic protestantism. And for him to team up with Caner, the pseudo Southern Baptist, one only for political cause... posh! Burn the blankets before the plague takes everyone!

I am confident that White will respond again, (Phil should again, also) and I hope Allen and his "researcher" have their fire insurance paid up (half way, @34 min., into this program on the DL will give you a taste of White Fire).
Why Allen continues to neglect context, Scripturally and historically, is beyond conscience. The SBC needs honesty, something obviously lacking among the majoritarians.

If it is unhealthy for Southern Baptists to team up with hyper-Calvinists, and who would disagree, not even White would, is Allen ready to admit that there is also no place in the SBC for Molinist heretics like Yarnell and Keathley, those who would introduce more Roman Catholic doctrine into the SBC beyond the obvious Hobbsian semi-Pelagianism? (See also Pelagius Island and other posts on semi-Pelaginism, here) Seems to me that before Allen throws stones by making ill-informed and poorly researched for him assertions, he needs to clean his own glass house.

And drop the term non-Calvinist. Arminianism is by nature opposed to Calvinsim. Call it what it is, anti-Calvinism. As J316C demonstrated, the orgiastic angst against Calvinism as embedded in the Arminian dregs, find full expression in those who are drunk on them.

To use the same bravado, we Allen critics stand by White, and we see no evidence that Allen has proved his case.

Allen quoted Phil Johnson's primer on Hyper-Calvinism:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any ‘offer’ of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.[www.spurgeon.org]

Now notice the subtle shift in terminology, exactly what White in his phone-in conversation was trying to clarify:

I would encourage the reader to take a look at this Primer for himself. The Primer clearly leaves the reader with the impression, if not out and out states, that a denial of God's universal saving will is a component of hyper-Calvinism.

Phil says: "Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear"

Allen says: "a denial of God's universal saving will"

One wonders why Allen is compelled to insert will when it is not present in Phil's list. What is meant by Gospel call, all who hear, applies? What is meant by offer? In what way is it offered? As potentiality, or as reality? Has God provided a hypothetical salvation or an actual one? What is meant by will? Is there one will that intends the salvation of everyman, and another that intends the salvation of just some? Allen avoided the discussion of the decrees of God in his presentations and now wants to insert his preconceived notions. A misstep, a miscue? Or, a calculated misdirection. For White does necessarily involve the decrees and now we get Allen trying to accuse by what was not made clear in Allen's presentation. Might we all agree, then, that Allen views God as schizophenic by what he has not said? Is universal desire different than universal saving will? Is the salvific intent the same for both elect and non? Is there even a salvific intent to save the non-elect (a contradiction in God)? Is the free offer particularly intended, or is it indifference and an open offer?

James White's phone conversation took place in the context of the previous callers, and primarily a debate with Steve Gregg, which, Tony Byrne failed to include, or even mention; a slight of hand move that has come to be known as a ynottony. Allen follow's the same deceptive pattern. White had just finished his debate series with Steve Gregg and is following up with a DL program on the subject. What White is attempting is to clarify is the language that is used. For many, like Allen, are inaccurate in using terms, not making a differentiation according to context. As I demonstrated, White does not disagree with others within the 5-Point camp, as he has been accused of doing:

In this article White says:

Christ gave Himself in behalf of His Church, His Body, and that for the purpose of cleansing her and making her holy. If this was His intention for the Church, why would He give Himself for those who are not of the Church? Would He not wish to make these “others” holy as well? Yet, if Christ died for all men, there are many, many who will remain impure for all eternity. Was Christ’s death insufficient to cleanse them? Certainly not. Did He have a different goal in mind in dying for them? [I am not here denying that the death of Christ had effects for all men, indeed, for all of creation. I believe that His death is indeed part of the "summing up of all things" in Christ. But, we are speaking here solely with the salvific effect of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. One might say that Christ's death has an effect upon those for whom it was not intended as an atoning sacrifice.] No, His sacrificial death in behalf of His Church results in her purification, and this is what He intended for all for whom He died.

This accords with Piper, perfectly, but White avoids the "two-wills" language because he is defending the intent of the atonement and not its expression in evangelistic terms. The latter, both the Arminian and the Calvinist agree with, the former is where the debate is, which Allen had avoided except in his allegations of hyper-Calvinism. As White makes clear and I have verified, he has addressed this issue many times and harmonizes with the majority of Calvinist history, doctrinally.

David Allen needs to actually listen to the call, and the debates and actually read the books that he boasts of having. I don't think that Allen is really capable of debating White, however. Annd even though I have said that probably the best debate would be with Tony Byrne (a.k.a.) ynottony, also known as the Byrner, and referred to in Scripture as Dichostasia, since Dr. Allen has chosen to further his attack of White on his own two feet without the crutch of TB, condemning White as one of those "other Baptists" as if no other tradition can inform the elite of the SBC, then perhaps, Allen is not like one of the typical blowhards of the SBC inner sanctum, as White has previously said, who will not debate. Now, with a looming sin of false witness to go along with the misrepresentations of historical writtings, the history of the SBC, et cetera, hanging like a dense cloud around Allen, Tony Byrne, Seth McBee, et al, and seeing that Allen has lied, again:

White denies the well-meant or “sincere” nature of God’s offer of the gospel to all men “in general".

it is most likely not if, but when a debate will occur, and if not, then a paper rebuttal. White indicated in his woodshed treatment of Seth, that there might be such a written response. Would either suffice? Knowing these types of politicians, probably not.

To repeat one more time, note how Allen defines the terms through the presuppostion of his romanish semi-Pelaianism. What he cannot allow for, for it would defeat his whole agenda, is that others do not share his limited vocabulary. Compare the terms and ask: Are both parties asking the same questions? If they are not using the same terms with like definitions, then no. He has challenged both Johnson and White to defend themselves. Well, does that mean Allen is willing to debate, or is the idoit wind of the SBC just a whiny breeze waffing through a cracked window?

Update: White begins response to David Allen's false accusations.

Update: Tom Ascol who was also pitted against James White responds.

Pray For All Of Those In Authority

2008-11-05T08:19:00.000-08:00

Prayer for the Chief.

...Hence we conclude, that fanatics, who wish to have magistrates taken away, are destitute of all humanity, and breathe nothing but cruel barbarism. How different is it to say, that we ought to pray for kings, in order that justice and decency may prevail, and to say, that not only the name of kingly power, but all government, is opposed to religion! We have the Spirit of God for the Author of the former sentiment, and therefore the latter must be from the Devil.

If any one ask, Ought we to pray for kings, from whom we obtain none of these advantages? I answer, the object of our prayer is, that, guided by the Spirit of God, they may begin to impart to us those benefits of which they formerly deprived us. It is our duty, therefore, not only to pray for those who are already worthy, but we must pray to God that he may make bad men good. We must always hold by this principle, that magistrates were appointed by God for the protection of religion, as well as of the peace and decency of society, in exactly the same manner that the earth is appointed to produce food. “Neither more nor less than the earth is appointed to produce what is adapted to our nourishment.” Accordingly, in like manner as, when we pray to God for our daily bread, we ask him to make the earth fertile by his blessing; so in those benefits of which we have already spoken, we ought to consider the ordinary means which he has appointed by his providence for bestowing them.

To this must be added, that, if we are deprived of those benefits, the communication of which Paul assigns to magistrates, that is through our own fault. It is the wrath of God that renders magistrates useless to us, in the same manner that it renders the earth barren; and, therefore, we ought to pray for the removal of those chastisements which have been brought upon us by our sins.

On the other hand, princes, and all who hold the office of magistracy, are here reminded of their duty. It is not enough, if, by giving to every one what is due, they restrain all acts of violence, and maintain peace; but they must likewise endeavor to promote religion, and to regulate morals by wholesome discipline. The exhortation of David (Psalm 2:12) to “kiss the Son,” and the prophecy of Isaiah, that they shall be nursing — fathers of the Church, (Isaiah 49:23,) are not without meaning; and, therefore, they have no right to flatter themselves, if they neglect to lend their assistance to maintain the worship of God... Calvin, Commentary on First Timothy 2.

Calvin sums up the different ideas that are contained in the exhortation. It takes into consideration the destruction of enemies that was part of David's pleas, but at the same time, Calvin is clear in pointing out that those who only petition for vengeance do harm to the Gospel, for Calvin goes on to explain the desire of God for the salvation of men, of whom we are who were likewise His enemies. There is also what will be discovered later in Timothy and in Ephesians and elsewhere, that our service to those who God has given for our good, be they good or not, is a requirement of sincerity and not merely the cover of sweet words from a bitter belly. The overriding purpose is that we live at peace with our governors, not that they live in peace with us, necessarily. In either circumstance, our disengagement with civilian affairs in as much as such engagement interferes with the work of the Gospel is to be pursued. The work of the Gospel is primary, not government, not social works. Such that, it is we who are to be at peace in what ever circumstance we live in. Our prayer of course should be that the government is godly, and improving in godliness, but as Calvin states, even in the captivity of Babylon, we are to be subject to the rulers according to godliness, pursuing goodness even in the face of tribulations.

Pray then for the peace of Babylon, that the Gospel not be hindered. The reality is that it is evil to call for the destruction of enemies simply so that we might have the benefits of God graces. Instead, if it is that he should take away our enemies, then let it be that the graces that we know become theirs. We have the history of the OT. God did both; he brought the destruction of the enemies of God by the sword and by the reformation of the hearts of kings, even those whose faith was not the faith of God. Therefore we walk circumspectly understanding that God's desire is that all manners of men be saved, even the likes of Paul. Paul knew all to well the grace of God afforded to him who once killed the saints of God. Then let us understand that we all were him at one time and pray for those who spitefully abuse us as well as those who protections afford us the ability to establish churches freely for the spread of the Gospel.

A No Brainer

2008-11-02T20:23:00.000-08:00

If you will notice, FDR is the champion of Socialism and yet, the programs that are being offered by his opponents in this propaganda film offer Obama's plank. Oh, yeah. Not even FDR would have made his short list. FDR, even though he gave us Mussolini's social security and was a change agent magician himself, was not nearly as much a leftist as is Obama.

Obama: When Do Jews and Blacks Gain Human Rights? That Question Is Above My Pay Grade. My Friends Khalidi, Ahmadinejad, And Sanger Know

2008-11-01T20:07:00.000-07:00

Obama, Khalidi, Ahmadinejad, And Sanger walk into a bar and order Bloody Marys...

Who Pays?

Who's Past Is That? Or, How To Kill The Obama Insurgency Before It Becomes The Final Solution

2008-10-29T09:39:00.000-07:00

The fact is Obama is a Black Fascist Separatist, following in the footsteps of his father and his fathers' whose radical dream was separationism and black supremacy. As Obama states he hates the white blood that he cannot separated from, an fact he associates with violence. He has lied with the aid of the DNC and their media dogs, with collusion from the halls of academia and mafiosi politicos from Chicago to Palestine, to Venezuela. He has harbored terrorists in his home and heart. He knew the fascist separatism of Jeremiah Wright and his love of Cone before 1995 but lied directly to the American people about his knowledge of that for which they stood. It has been his dream, his fathers' dream to overthrow the mythos of his own white heritage.

Obama knew Ayers' fascism, knew the politics of his Islamic Fascist friends and financiers and sided with them against the interests of the United States. It appears that Obama's life has been bought and paid for by agents hostile to the United States. From his early training by his father in anti-American propaganda to the purchase of his degree years, to his installment in the ultra liberal Harvard Law review presidency and his lieutenant work with the "family" figures in Chicago's corrupt political machine, Obama is a made man.

Obama may not, but Ayers' understands the end of fasci thought is anarchism and that it depends upon death by a thousand cuts, that is, it is manifold in alliances with others who share the goal of total liberation:

Ayers and Obama worked together to create a school system in Chicago with the same anti-American bent they share for the indoctrination of children into the ideology of hate. Fascism is an ideology and uses the tactics of stealth, hiding its true face in alliances with the oppressed, in formulation of social reform and welfare, with exploiting the populist values whether moral or not. Religionism, be it Islam, or the Nation of Islam, Protestant Christianity, or Catholicism, Paganism, or Atheism, or any other, is merely one of the vehicles that is used. Unity around axial meaning, core ideology and shared values of the "oppressed" masses, fasci is a many member, many masked champion, bound together against a common enemy, real or created. As for Obama, he was trained as a child by his radical Muslim father, converted to the christless christianity of Black Liberation Theology to advance his political career and subjugated himself under the radical separatism of Coneism taught to him by his master, Jeremiah Wright. Fasci- it is Obama's life.

The end of all fascisms is anarachy. Institutions, be they political or religious, are just the means to that end. Out of the ashes of chaos, the Phoenix, their hope, if it can be called that, is tribalism, the reduction of all civilized government to the single chieftain of self-rule, autonomy, and that only as long as one remains fit. Facisms need the cyclic war, the continual ritual cleansing pyres, until the perfect state of the lawless one is achieved. Crisis is exploited and if needed created. Sadly, there are those who would plot the death of Obama simply to bring about chaos and revolution. Sadly, he would also hope that Ayers' dream was realized. Obama is expendable, for the only thing that matters to the fasci is the ends even if the means is through the eventual cleansing of the miscreants and the mal-adapters from the human species for the purification of truly egalitarian race. Obama has stated his hatred of racial differentiation and aspires to rid even himself of the contamination of his white blood. Like his friend Hugo Chavez who is Euro/African/Indio, Obama hates his white European ancestry and and exploits race to advance his cause as a black man, and not as one of mixed race.

Why the cover-up? Why the conspiracy? There are only a few days left before the USA potentially makes her final solution a reality. The information has been available for a long time, the historic record cannot be expunged, yet purposely, it has been covered up by the leftist Goebbelesque media. Regardless if they are dupes or conspirators, Obama's past is pertinent to an informed vote. There is no freedom of choice without knowledge. Obama's hatred of the Constitution, the flag, the liberty upon which this country was founded, is easily documented. How will it come to be that he would swear allegiance to them, then, when he hates them and has admitted that his life long aspiration has been to bring them to ruin? That his past, that's his present, let's not make it our future.

ACORN Grows A Mighty Operation Oak: The Future Of Duce Obama's Liberated U.S.A.

2008-10-14T09:04:00.000-07:00

Duce Obama was weaned upon black fascism. It is easily established. Who does he owe beside ACORN?

Obama: Change We Don't Need

Rightwing Monochromatons?

2008-10-11T20:17:00.000-07:00

In this post I answer a response at Camponthis that asserted that conservatives are so"monochromatic on one issue that you forget the whole spectrum of issues"

Really! And Ayers is just an anomaly in Obama's life? Get real. Obama sat under the tutelage of Wright's fascist black separatism and the racial cleansing ethos of Cone for two decades. His past is littered with the most seedy of relationships.

So what's monochromatic? Abortion, redistribution of wealth, the seizure of private property, the fairness doctrine, the federalization of banking and industry? You see, they're all connected to an ideological base. Obama's fascist socialist leanings are easily documented. The naivete of the typical Democrat registered voter is monochromatic, the only issue being: who is going to give me a free lunch.

What Obama represents is what our country fought against in two world wars, why Korea and Viet Nam, why Afghanistan and Iraq, why we oppose the militarism of Iran. His brand of racist fascism has ripped countries apart around the world. And it can happen here. Whether abortion, or association with fascists like Ayers, or Barbarian Boxer who wanted to seize the oil companies, or green policies that up-end private enterprise, forced indoctrination in the schools, and a litany of related issues, we are not monochromatic. We are informed about the far reaching implications of fascisms embedded in the Government (Mussolini's Social Security) and NGO's supported by federal funding (PP, ACLU) and persons and programs in the form of organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus. The National Education Association, founded upon the ideology of a proto-fascist named John Dewey whose entire impetus was to destroy the capitalistic system of republican democracy in the US, is the single largest contributor to the DNC. Planned Parenthood was founded by a rabid fascist. We understand Mfume's radical agenda the why he pushed the NAACP to the extremist racial position that it follows today. We know the NAACP's founder, Du Bois' and his fascistic eugenic leanings, we understand who the Weatherman and the Black Panther Party still are, La Raza and the recent advances of friends and financial supporters of Obama who are also radical Islamists. We see the corruption of the housing industry that has profited men to the tune of tens of millions of dollars who are liberal Democrats and friends of Obama. We understand that their interference of the financial markets through wealth redistribution by forcing banks to make risky loans has precipitated the current collapse of global markets.

Monochromatic, nah, we are multi-issued concerned citizens of a free nation who do not want to see it become the soviet socialist state.

Check the facts. What is the educational level of the left? We've been told that is is higher than that of the right. Think about it. Who is the voter base of the left? Do you think that the poor who are paying outrageous prices for commodities from gasoline to bread, to housing and are receiving the nation's worst education, know that the reason that they do is because of left-wing policies, Democrat interference with the markets from restrictions upon drilling, to blocking power plant construction, to environmental restrictions that drive up costs unnecessarily, to opposition of privatization of education, to welfare urban magnets (cities built upon welfare), that those most vulnerable are made so and kept so by those who promise to get out of the ghettos but in reality keep them there, a ready voter base? We were told that Katrina's New Orleans was a Republican catastrophe, when in reality, the welfare magnet of free hospitals, free health-care, housing, food, clothing, subjugated a density of population that otherwise would not have been so it if had not have been for welfare. During natural or man-made disaster, the welfare herds are the most likely to suffer. It was liberal policies, and I might add, liberal corruption in LA and New Orleans governments that created what was. It was only by the grace of God, that it was far less a tragedy than it could have been. I shudder imagine what a major earthquake, or economic devastation, or other factor would do to L.A., and no one would be able to do a thing about it. We don't have enough military to prevent the wholesale barrio wars that would break out.

The Soviets understood, the Mexican Government, too, when it herded millions into concentration camp cities like Mexico City with a population over 20,000,000. It was a small fraction of that size before the government nationalized farming in the 1970's and turned the land over to the Patrons to manage. The quasi-fascist/mafia state of Mexico crushes independence and perpetuates poverty and its populations sinks keep the people corralled and controlled. But only as long as there is supply. When they can escape they flee to our welfare traps only to become slaves to the liberal policies that purchase their votes with crumbs of bread stolen from the mouths of other peoples children. In either case, either by forced resettlement or resettlement by the dragnet of welfare, they are a revolution waiting to happen. We have to question where welfare policies, including abortion, are leading us.

Do liberals seriously think (or want) that abortion will end the over-population that is aggravated by subsidized living? Hardly. Welfare families are necessary for the perpetuation of the socialist cause, peaceful or violent. Their own governmental policies encourage the dissolution of marriage and increase rather than decrease birth rates among the indigent beyond their ability to care for themselves. But, liberals need the poor. The hungry will kill for a piece of bread to keep their families alive, and there are always those who will kill simply for a piece of bangle. So none of their programs are ever intended to alleviate the situation. Welfare sinks in the U.S. are the largest store of Democrat votes. Poorly educated by an education system implemented by the Democrats and their major socialist support the NEA intended to keep them dependent. The left keeps them corralled, keeps them poor, keeps them envious and disparate, and keeps them voting for the Democrats who offer them nirvana and never deliver the goods.

Far from being monochromatic we have a rainbow view of reality. It is the propagandists that tell you: "the Obama-Ayers link...has been shown...was only a passing acquaintanceship." Passing, seriously, you believe that? Check the facts. Theirs has been an intimate partnership to advance the cause. They tell you that we have a monochromatic view to keep you off guard. That is what they want you to believe. They want you to believe that we are no different than their voter base, uneducated and ill-informed. They want you to believe that we don't put the picture together, that it is some how not connected. Listen, Ayers is part of the same movement as Obama and Wright and Cone, ad infinitum, ad nauseum... They are fascist socialists and are continuing a war that started before the turn of the twentieth century. Don't be fooled. Saddam Hussein was the nephew of Nazi Liaison who trained him, raised him up to reestablish the fascism alliance that was toppled by the Allies. Why are we in Iraq? You suppose it is merely commercial oil? Not strategic? Not an ongoing effort against the same old enemies? Do you honestly think there is not some global connection to who is funding Obama and Chavez? Why Chavez's connection to Ayer's, Russia, Castro, why does Chavez train Al Qaeda, why have his operatives been found in the US? And who are Chavez's friends, compatriots in the revolution? Ayers and Obama. If you track their ideology, it lines up with Louis Farrakhan, Russel Means, Antonia Darder, and any number of Islamic fascists. Obama comes from these roots. It is what he did in college, it is what he was involved in in Chicago. So it is not just abortion, but the why abortion is such an ugly necessary sacrament for the advancement of their cause.

Monochromatic? Who says?

You need to quit reading Salon except maybe for David Horowitz. The link you gave is a dead end but I found the article and followed the links. There is no substance to the claim that she is a secessionist, nor that the AIP is, either. They do believe in something I advocated as a Republican Candidate for the Wyoming House, that the Federal Government get out of the states where they are illegally, unconstitutionally holding land. The Constitution forbids by proscription, Federal Government authority to occupy any land other than that which is needful for military forts and Government buildings. States like Alaska, Nevada and Wyoming have as much as eighty-five percent of their lands illegally occupied by the Feds. The US is a federal union of independent states not a union of federal states. The AIP desire for avote for secession is only a move to make a statement of their state's rights guaranteed under the US Constitution. Nothing wrong with that. No smoking gun there.

Update: Branchflower Report Released: Palin not guilty!

And as an addendum: Chavez spreads his fascism in the Bronx and the people there say, "Who cares, shoot my mother, thanks for the beer!" What a fascist pig Chavez is, and what an example of the depth of liberal Democrat mentality. This is Obama.

Why I'm A Harrier Guy

2008-10-11T16:32:00.000-07:00

Asked why one with prevenient grace believes and not another, the libertarian answers, “one believed and the other did not”. But I did not ask him what he did, because we all know what he did already from my question, but I asked ‘why’ he believed. 'One believed' is no answer at all. It is merely saying the same thing in other words. Our libertarian friend never really answer the question as I asked it, but he did answer it according to his libertarian philosophy which he imports into the Scripture, since he believes that it was not the nature of his heart (or anything else) that caused him to choose one way or the other. The will itself is sovereign, in the libertarian view, and has an ability of its own which can ultimately choose apart from any gracious affections of the heart. To a libertarian, he can choose Christ even if he does not desire Him. While the affections may influence the choice, in their view, still the will can chose what it doesn’t want ultimately, which, of course, destroys the unity of the person.

Harry means:

1. cause distress by repeated attacks: to cause somebody physical, mental, or emotional distress by repeated physical or verbal attacks
2. raid or pillage: to raid or pillage a place, especially during a war

Or:

smallest piglet:
the smallest or weakest piglet in a litter

To be harried:

looking or feeling tired and annoyed

A harrier:

1. somebody who harries somebody else: somebody who repeatedly attacks another person or group physically or verbally 2. raider or pillager: somebody who raids or pillages a place

We don't expect a small weak piglet to be a threat, really. It is the squealing that takes on the attribute of another type of harrier:

dog for rabbit hunting: a small hound resembling a foxhound used for hunting hares or rabbits

The only annoyance there is when they're caged and still howl and yip as if they were hunting.

We appreciate it when one shows tireless endurance like:

runner: a cross-country runner

But when the runner loses the race and keeps running anyway and claims victory because no one else is, that's an annoying harrier.

Generally we don't think of one as a sleek or an able hunter with remarkable eyesight and soaring above its prey:

a slender graceful hawk with long wings and a long tail that hunts by flying low over marshland and grassland to catch mice, snakes, frogs, and fish
when being harried. We think of the squealers, instead, used car salesmen, telemarketers, bill collectors and the like.

We think of Paul being harried by what at first was a tolerable follower. And when someone is a harrier of this kind, we can forgive them, but when they are a harrier of this kind we find them a little more than tiring.

Why? Just answer the why. Why or why won't you answer the why oh harrier guy? Could it be? Or, this?

Why, oh, why?

Southern Baptist Offered Closing Prayer At RNC Heretical?

2008-09-14T18:20:00.001-07:00

In all fairness it must be addressed. McCain's endorsement by the Southern Baptists via the ostensible independence of a local SBC pastor is no less to be scrutinized than the ecumenical prayers offered by heretics.

Dan Yeary is not odd. He is mainline Southern Baptist and typical of the many majoritarians who are not strangers to mishandling texts of Scripture. A quick review of his churches statement concerning Jesus is very telling. It does not offer a redemptive Christ, only a potential savior, a theoretical salvation not based in the propitiatory work of Christ on Calvary, necessarily, but in the petitioner's prayer for a possible salvation:

We believe that Jesus has eternally existed as God. Jesus became human in order to restore the relationship between God and humanity, which had been broken because of our sin. In other words, God became one of us. This is sometimes called the Incarnation. The written record of God revealing his plan to restore what had been broken through Jesus is called the Bible. It tells us that Jesus not only became human, but was born to a virgin and lived a sinless, perfect life on earth. His perfect life meant that his death would enable sinful humanity to have a way back to God. Jesus chose to die on a cross as a sacrifice for us and he rose from the dead three days later to make new life possible for us in this life and the next. What Jesus did during his time on earth, his character, and his teachings provide a consistent reminder of what we should be about with our lives.

How do I begin a relationship with Jesus and receive this new life?
By confessing, or admitting your sin to God, putting your trust in Jesus and what His death and resurrection made possible for you, and yielding your life to God's purposes, you can begin a personal relationship with Jesus. We believe that when we begin that relationship, the Spirit of God enters our being - we call it the Holy Spirit - and that Spirit not only becomes our guide, but it continues the process that began at our point of surrender - moving us from a life of sin to a life where we resemble the person of Jesus Christ.

As you might note this is a strange mixture with a strong Arminianism which places the basis of salvation not in the atoning work of Christ, but in the libertarian freewill of the creature. This is actually a rejection of orthodox Protestantism as captured in Luther's Bondage of The Will. It is not Christian. It avoids the clear Biblical teaching on propitiation, the necessity of the new birth prior to faith and makes salvation to be of works.

But that is not really the issue in the prayer though it impacts the reason why the prayer was made the way it was.

Under the Law Solomon built a temple. In the dedication Solomon makes a frightful statement of turbulence and unsettled seas, of valleys and peaks; the unfortunate striving after a righteousness that is by the law. Man condemned by his own unfruitfulness is unable to bring forth a life which endures. It is all so reminiscent of the The Preacher.

Under the Law a nation, even if it could be in unity and pray as one man to God for relief, would only find itself distressed again because all men sin, continuously, and a nation under the Law is subject to the sin of one as much as it is to the sin of the many. Since all are sinners, Solomon said, there is no hope found among men for the nations of men.

The curse of mankind is strife, and all the nations lie under that curse, to be kept under punishment, for that is why the Law was given. But in that also is the hope. For what the Law was unable to do God did.

Contrary to the notion that the U.S. is God's nation, a similar claim made by British writers, politicians and religious pundits in the eighteenth century, God's nation is above and his people are scattered among all the nations of the earth and their country is not of this earth.

Yeary finished his prayer:

And, oh Lord, in humility, we ask that You remind us that we cannot put our country first unless You are foremost.

But the reality is that we cannot put our country first at all. That itself is sin. That is not the mission of the church. Its charge is to preach Christ crucified by the Jews at the hands of evil men according to the Law and the Prophets for the remission of sins through repentance and belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And, to do, as Yeary did, to make this nation subject to the Law of God under Moses, for Solomon was merely reinstituting the covenenant that Joshua and Moses before him made with the people, is to invoke God's wrath because as Solomon said, as Joshua concluded, if only one man is sinful under the Law, the whole of the Law breaks forth upon the whole nation. It is a different Gospel Yeary preaches Paul said, one that is no Gospel at all. Joshua as Solomon did, as Moses, said that the people testified against themselves; that they were evil and that they would always be abandoning the repentance that they pledged out of their pride to keep the law. The righteous plea is not we can, or that we will, or that we have, but that we can't obey: "Have mercy on us Oh God!" To offer a nation an "if my people will" is to condemn it, because man cannot will to turn from wickedness and do good always. If he could, he could keep the Law and Christ's death would have been in vain. That is why Christ was sent, contrary to what Yeary's church teaches.

As Richard Land did in his quantum prayer and visioning occult hat tricks book in quoting Solomon, Yeary does. It is a commonality among many Southern Baptists to play these parlor tricks with the Scripture, to misdirect and refocus attention away from grace to a life of labor. The unfortunate thing is that it remains an abandonment of the Gospel in exchange for a pragmatic approach to personal prosperity no different than the most disgusting of properity teachers.

Check out: Why the Meaning of Heresy Changes in Pluralistic Contexts
by Peter L. Berger

Heretic and Blasphemer Joel Hunter of Northland Community Church Supports Obamesiah

2008-08-29T10:05:00.000-07:00

Oh yeah! Jesus Christ is the same as any other God! As Steve Camp says in his comment section:

Hunter's risible prayer and convoluted multicultural ecumenical universal "amen" at the end is nothing but sheer spiritual treason...

...Hunter is not only a coward; he should be removed from his pastorate as one who has abandoned the faith and not held to the sacred charge given to all in pastors in 2 Tim. 4:1-5.

I found it interesting that Hunter twisted the Lord's prayer by inserting "let" into a hand wringing liberal petition. That isn't what it is. This portion of the Prayer is declaratory, not petitional; part of the invocation that declares the holiness and sovereignty of God. Even the petitional portion or so it is traditionally thought of, Give us, forgive us, lead us, deliver us, on the whole are in the imperative sense contextually and should be understood as because it is this way in heaven, as you have commanded it, it is done. It is not a matter of requesting something that may or may not be accomplished. Infact the aorist tense is in the mix indicating that the things which God has commanded in the past are those things he is doing and will continue to do as fact. In other words, "Give us this day our daily bread," is a commandment and is better rendered, "As it has always been, you command that bread is given today."

A handwringing prayer though would fit the false hope of Obamaism. The hope they have is as a beggar for bread and not the assurance of faith that is the current possession of the children, the sure and certain thing of Christian hope. God will have it his way, and not ours, of that we can be sure, that is our assurance. If Obama is the elected president, it will despite his anti-Christian BLT, but will still be the will of God. And, "Though he slays me, yet will I hope in him" is comfort to us.

Those of you who are people of faith

which faith, Mr. Hunter? The faith, as in the faith once for all delivered to the saints? Or the false faith of the world which you propose, that does not know the object of its affection?

Altogether now! One two three, "In Aljehbabudvisnananana, arinink and bob, and Jesus' name too, Amen. Yeh, that makes sense.

Another Heretic can be heard at A Rose.

Does Obama Know At What Point He Will Become Human?

2008-08-18T09:11:00.000-07:00

Questions, questions, questions. Gene Veith posits some question for those who are worshipping Obama (See here, here, and here), and many more questions arise the more The One opens his mouth. In the above video it comes out so clear that Obama has no clue about reality, nor of Christianity, and so cannot really say what his world view is. He is definitely not the all knowing One as many think.

The title of this blog piece is no joke. It might have been written, O does not know when a person of any race, or sex, or handicap becomes a human. The reason being is that though it might be a philosophical problem for those who irrationally bite into some folk religion and don't know basic biological facts of life, for the rational life begins at conception. What we have in Obama is not a Christian world view, nor even that of a confused prepubescent child who is not sure of the birds and the bees but that of a self-compromised puppet; a politically correct world view such as that which men who love to be worshipped by men need to hold. His is the headcheese reality of the postmodernism.

Science clearly defines humanness in a biological sense as beginning at conception, always has, and always will. Magic would say the conceptus becomes a different entity in some mysterious way, at some indeterminate point, but not science. The question of the humanness of the conceptus becomes a question only because of the need to obscure reality philosophically to support the genocidal policies of men like Obama. What Obamesiah says is fecalicious for those who will eat anything to satisfy the gluttony of their elitist pride, but it reeks of intellectual developmental depravity. Obama does have a definition of humanness, does he not, he would not allow the abortion of his wife by some other party, would he? His sliding scale of humanness is solely a product of his imagination and indeterminacy. The question remains, since he claims he does not know when a definition should be applied, when would he apply it to his wife, his daughters, the black community? Arbitrary philosophical categories, such as the left employs as their only appeal to credibility, makes no case for Obama's insistence upon being pro-choice. What choice exists when there is no definition of the object of that choice?

If no one knows, then why is it a moral problem unless ignorance raises the spectre of a possible murder? Isn't this what is known as a class one error; the error of the fool? In any case, blind faith is Obama's religion, not Christianity. Why is it an ethical problem? Is it only the utilitarian aspect as O enunciates later, that determines ethics? Why is it a dilemma for women, the cost? Why would they wrestle with it in "profound ways" if indeed, as Obama says, it is not established when human life begins? Is it is only upon utilitarian grounds that his religious beliefs rest? If so, then, it is not Christian faith to which he holds, but the blindness of probability, and surely not the audacious hope of Christian assurance. If utility defines his reality, abortion decisions are only a matter of struggle along the lines of which pair of shoes to buy to go along with which outfit. Is he saying that the consultation with a counselor is to persuade one way or the other? But, what counsel does anyone have to aid in the decision process if no one can hold truth one way or the other; if it is only a matter of a religious/theological opinion of the best possible outcome? Doesn't the counselor take on the credibility of a used car salesman, then? Surely if science cannot answer the question for Obama, no doctor, as if it were his propriety to do so, can give theological/moral advice about such a profound moral and ethical event, let alone medical advice, though a financial planner or a cosmologist, might. And, an honest theologian, a moral adviser who according to Obama cannot have any right answers, definitively, is stuck with being unable to give counsel, either. The response "I can't argue with you" surely cannot be considered to make the case for his argument for abortion can it? If he cannot demonstrate that the conceptus is not human, would he carelessly counsel that it can be exterminated? For such a national struggle with the "gravity" of the issue, such flippant treatment is surely contradictory and hypocritical and not the kind of consideration we expect of a man whose office gives him supreme command of the military.

"Abortions have not gone down." Hmmm, wonder why? Could it be that the U.S. Government funds Planned Parenthood? That a liberal congress continues this gross maladministration of tax dollars? Could it be that Democrats and liberals who promote promiscuity could be causal agents? Could it be that it is simply because it is legal? What is the bet that Obamesiah will propose eliminating funding to this fascist organization? He promotes the support of single mothers and adoption? Why is it that we the people are responsible for the individual's choice but have no say in the decision? Why doesn't he back holding the pro-choice chooser and their free-will supporters fully financially accountable, and leave alone those whose consciences are compromised by governmental seizure of property, a forced tithe, for support? Would that be enough support, or is it true that Obamesiah commands all to bow to his religious preference?

It really boils down to the fact that Obama's world view is irresponsibility. Just as in his irresponsible cop-out about humanness, he is unwilling to make a clear and unequivocal statement about just who is responsible for "unwanted" pregnancies because to do so demands absolutes which so incriminate the left which loves to force everyone to do their will. Does he not know that one of the possible outcomes of wanted sex is pregnancy? Oh, that's right, he thinks pregnancy a punishment decreed by the fates. Perhaps he actually thinks that all liberals are as ignorant about the facts of life as he has admitted he is himself? If he thinks he is his sister's keeper, then why does he want to force others to contribute to his theological perspective to take care of her through taxes? Why does he exempt the most least of these from human rights? Does he deny that the person who pulls the trigger is the culpable party? Or, does he blame the witness, the conceptus? Obama's view on sin is vacuous and begs the question just who he blames for his own. His claim to mercy, then, is as empty as his claim to right judgement and humility.

Obama answers Warren: Jesus said: "'whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.' Yes these are my ears, why do you ask?"

2008-08-16T20:19:00.000-07:00

Of course what Jesus said was said about his disciples and not everyone in general. Hillary misapplied the same passage and for the same reason, not as a prophet, but for profit. Leave it to a liberal to blaspheme Christ by misuse of his words to exploit the poor for political gain. And leave it to Warren, the Southern Baptist's formost overlooker to let pass an opportunity correcting The One concerning the Gospel.

Steve Camp posted on his blog a piece titled Obamanation. Below is a compendium of my thoughts in responses to one of his readers:

So he is not thick. I somewhat agree with that. Then he is definitely a deceiver, isn't he? I mean, he fully knows what Black Liberation Theology is. He sat under its teaching for two decades. He's surely read Cone. Being smartsy, shouldn't he have known the fascistic reality of it? Shouldn't he not have aligned himself with its blatant racism. I think he knows, yet he has not come out and condemned it. Instead, what he does is weave weak definitions around an amorphous Christianity. So then the question arises is he too stupid to think that others don't know, or is he smart enough to know that so many do not? If the latter, what kind of values is that, that he would take advantage of the ignorant.

Either way, lying in the name of Jesus Christ, I would label as thick, wouldn't you?

My point is simply this: Obama makes claims of intellectual acuity fitting the presidency. He also makes truth claims about religion. His two decades in Wright's church afforded him plenty of time to investigate the theology that Wright espoused from the time he entered the pulpit there until he left. Obama's associations with the radical black community is well known. To claim as Obama does, the Christian faith, puts him in a position of responsibility that is higher than that of just a misinformed man on the street. He is standing as one who has authority seeking to be a leader. Much more is expected. By association, the name of Jesus Christ is invoked whenever Obama makes such claims. He spoke definitively concerning universalism and the unreliability of Scripture. He associates Christ's name with lies so he does violate the commandments and takes the Lord's name vainly upon himself and his statements. By misleading the populace he does not show love of neighbor or of God, does he?

Here's the summation, Obama needs to come clean. He can admit that he does not know what he is talking about and apologize, or he can admit that he does know what he is talking about but rejects Christianity. Along with that, he can admit that he does know what Black Liberation Theology is all about and has not been forthcoming, and explain why, or he can admit that he is not well read and is uninformed as to the political ethos that commands the majority of the politicized black community.

What we want from him, just as we wanted from Romney, is definition. Romney proved himself unfit when he morphed Mormonism into Christianity. Who wants a president who is dishonest? It may be true that most of America is ignorant, that is not the issue. It is deceptive and abusive to take advantage of the ignorant. What kind of president would he make if as a candidate he abuses those who he swears to represent? We do know that Obama has claimed fitness for office, but if he does not know what he was doing for twenty years and did not expend the interest in his own life to figure it out, then he is no more fit than most who fill the pew or walk the street. Indeed he is not fit at all.

Obama can come clean and admit his failure to protect his wife and girls from the values of BLT. He surely cannot claim that he is trying to instill in his daughters values of virtue while at the same time exposing them to the radical agenda of Cone and his successors. What we then need from him and those who support him is not the obscurantism that they have become known for, but honesty. That would end his campaign, however.

The claims that have been made about Obama by those who support him are messianic. The question of being a moron arise because he does not articulate intelligently what he claims to know. So it does not matter if he has taken upon himself the mantle of Messiah, he does not reject it, does he? But, that fits with the cult of personality so central to victim theology. BLT as all the other liberationisms require The One who will deliver them. Neither has he made the effort to honestly answer questions about his knowledge of and associations with the leaders of such movements. We are then left with only the two options: either he is a deceiver and does think of himself as the deliverer, or he really is a moron being manipulated by string pullers. I don't think the second is true in the least.

Wright did not need to preach undiluted racism. He only needed to poison the well from time to time. That is not the issue. Wright's purpose from the first was to establish a liberationist congregation. What one would hope is that an "intellect" such as Obama, sitting in the pew, would at some point go home and open up the books to see if the things being said were true. Cone was central to Wright's teaching from the get go. I do not know, but I would bet that Obama has read Cone since Wright was, as Obama claims, his mentor and all, for what does a mentor do, not introduce his apprentice to his traditions? Come now, shoud we seriously think that Obama is not carrying out what he was discipled in, at least in some sense? I cannot imagine that Obama is ignorant of the Congressional Black Caucus nor of the ideology that drives its members. Does he not know Mfume's resume'? Did he followed the shift in the NAACP's mission and vision? Are we to assume that he knows the separatist values of the various liberation movements like La Raza? the AIM? Does he know how those values align with radical Islam? Does he know what connection Saddam Hussein had to Nazism? Why is it that the Leftist media has not gone after such connections? Do they think that Obama is The One who can finally bring their shared aspirations to a head?

Whether Messiah, or moron is a valid question. One that needs to be answered before November. It is time to take off the blinders. According to Rev Wright, the good Rev is not a "superiorty" racist, he is racist none the less:

"Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora."

This propaganda piece is found at the end of Rev Wright's talking points at his church's site. What Diaspora? What 400 years (interesting play on Israel's captivity in Egypt). Does he mean the 400 years of African slave trade that still goes on in Africa? Does he mean that the slavers that were black that occupied the African continent before 400 years ago were not black? Does he mean the black's who were freed men who owned blacks in this country? The fact is that his church has been from his takeover forward steeped in BLT, a thoroughly race based faith, and not Christian at all. How can anyone explain his bastardization of history? The point that I made was that O claimed that Wright was his mentor and O could hardly not be aware of this statement found at the church's website. Or is O really that stupid? You'll be hard pressed to find any mentor who does not disciple his apprentice in what he believes and this is what Wright professes he believes. In twenty years of association it would be the height of absurdity to think that Wright never mentioned to Obama Cone's racist doctrine, wouldn't it? As I said, add to that O's affections for radical separtists like Farrakhan as well as radical Marxists like Ayers and we do not have to guess at O's orientation before becoming a political figure. Question is why it is being suppressed by the liberal media?

To be fair:

But, there is no difference between NOI and BLT, no difference between Wright and King Louie; the window dressing of Islam or Christian cannot obscure the obvious.

Look at Wright's church website: "The Center for African Biblical Studies is AFRICAN-CENTERED...seeking to implement and promote Bible Study from an African perspective." Not racist, eh? Ah, would you promote a certain perspective if you did not think it superior? Surely if it was only an equal then it wouldn't matter whether it is promoted over another, would it?

Wright goes on: "Because…“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian...our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and we remain “true to our native land”, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation; and we constantly affirm our trust in God through the cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black community."

The fact is BLT is anything but Christian and not just something with which I disagree. As this statement proves along with others found at the sight, Wright's view is that the "we are a people" sets the African aside as a special people. It usurps the unique role of Israel as God's covenant bearer. Is Africa the mother continent? Are Africans the source, is Obama The One who they have been waiting for all these years? BLT sets up what is known as the black hermeneutic by which everything in Scripture is filter through the eyes of those who have determined what the black experience is as if what the elite black ministers think is the monolithic history of African peoples. It is a sham, the exploitation of ignorance, and Obama knows it or he is a moron. The reality: he is a Jesse Jackson, an exploiter of bitterness.

All who are Christians at times speak falsehoods; that does not make them liars in the name of Jesus. But, unlike Obama, the typical Christian is not being asked as an authority figure seeking leadership to define the faith, either. Obama is and has. Beyond that, as I said he is disengenuous in expecting that no one will call him to account because he thinks that no one else really knows. Now, I think that a bit arrogant and superior, don't you?

Make yourself familiar with the theology that O is steeped in which finds common ground with: "Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love." Add to this that Cone held that all whites are oppressors, that Cone endorsed Wright's church as the number one organization in the revolution, that Wright claims Cone as his hero, that Obama was mentored by Wright and what do you get? Regardless of Obama's feigned distancing from Wright, Obama has not been forth coming in the racial superiority ethics of the BLT with which he is so familiar. Nelson Mandela made similar statements while he was the leader of a BLT faction that carried out terrorist acts. He was deified by the left wing media. From such simple beginnings, if you want to trace fascist rhetoric, you'll find this mentality and tactic repeatedly, expressed in propaganda such as the Jewish oppressors who rule the world, control the banks and oppress all others especially the German people who so long were held captive to the Hebrew God, or so Hitler would say as he advanced the cause of the workers party. Victimology needs an oppressor and the leaders are all to willing to exploit ignorance for personal aggrandizement. Cone's call for the destruction of the white race echoes Farrakhan. The NOI claims racial superiority due to the fact that they are an oppressed people, the chosen ones of God, beset by the white devil who God has given over to the black race to destroy. Sound too conspiritorial? Then your memory of recent history is lacking.

Go back and listen to Wright again through the presuppositions that his theology lays out. It will take on a whole different meaning. If you cannot understand, then think of O's pedigree. When and if O comes out and admits his knowledge and denounces Wright's theology as equal to that of Farrakhan's and Cone and Trinity and the entire Black Power movement, then maybe he can begin to be trusted. When he admits that he has known all along but thought it expedient to suppress it, then we might begin to see the real man behind the mask. It does no good to merely denounce the undesireables, a.k.a. Farrakhan. The reason for there being any connection in the first place is the issue.

I was questioned about the above statements concerning Rev Wright's church because it is so involved in social work: "But they (good works my emphasis) do suggest that insinuations that it is a racist hate-filled breeding ground for bigotry are misrepresentations." Well, the only thing I can say is that is forgetting who and what the Italian Fasci and the German Nazi movements were all about. They were about social change and were deeply involved in good social works. It was a ruse, a front. My feeling is that many are more willing to excuse core ideology because of externals than to take an indepth look at what drives the social expression. Do not be deceived, look at the NOI and what it does in the inner city. Does what they do as far as social amelioration change who they are?

I am not implying that O even holds to these teachings. Wright extols Cone and vice verse. My only point was that O should know and should be forthcoming, but that would cost him the election. At any rate, he cannot claim erudition and expertise about issues affecting the U.S. in any realm without fundamental knowledge of those issues. He must know that much of the racial divide has been perpetuated by the likes of Wright. If he truly wants change then it would seem that he would enunciate the perpetuation of racism that is surely found in BLT and of those who hold it or some form of it if indeed he wants to change the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. But, then he would join Keyes in falling out of favor with the black political community and liberals in general.

I find it incredible that O identifies with only half of his genetic pool. He has put himself in the starting gate of the first black candidate. But, he is not black, is he? He is actually part of the estimated majority of American people with African ancestry that are also of European decent. That would make him part of the loathesome majority, hate mongerering, eurocentrist, white population, then wouldn't it? What purpose does O have in suppressing the idea that within himself he has bridged the racial divide. In taking the tact that he is the first presumptive black candidate he divides himself against his own household. How then can he stand?

It troubles me that so many cannot see the racism in the black hermenuetic. A hermenuetic is the rule for interpretation. Will not the outcome of such a beginning presupposition favor itself over another? Is it race neutral? Not at all, and it is contrary to the basic hermenuetic of Biblical interpretation which is Christ and the clear reality that the story is not about race, nor even the struggles of peoples, but Christ, which is why Scripture clearly declares that there is no such division in Him. That is why BLT and Trinity's gospel is not Christian. To create such a division is by its nature political. O has not been short on using race to divide no matter his rhetoric on unity. In his speeches, no matter how progressive and ameliorating the surface intent, it must be tendered with what basic worldview he might hold. That is what we need to know: does he or does he not hold to the black hermenuetic?

Again, I have not meant to accuse O of any conspiracy, only to ask why the obfuscation? So the questions remain since he is practicing obscurantism, does he believe in the BLT ethics or is he an uniformed candidate? If the first then the follow-up, does he believe himself The One who will deliver his people. As you read Wright's talking points (his decalogue) this "we are a people" is all too encrusted with Cone. Believing themselves to be a people to be delivered requires as I said, a Deliverer. If as O said, "The time is now" is not just a platitude but an expression of his view of himself and the "revolution" then Steve's proposition fits like skin on tissue.

Evidentally

2008-08-09T21:56:00.000-07:00

Pulpit Mag's Nathan Busenitz has given us a testament of evidentiary proofs that the Bible is reliable. Evidentially the Scripture is truth, no doubt. However, all the evidence in the world is not enough to save anyone:

"But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Our primary problem is not that we do not have enough evidence. Our problem is that without the Spirit, we are not equipped to receive it. No matter what evidence is presented it is to no avail. Except a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom. Then what evidence, what signs, will save. Jesus said that a wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign and no sign will be given except the resurrection. And who was it that saw that first hand? There was none. Even the disciples did not behold it until after it happened. What then can we present that will ever convince anyone that he has risen? Jesus put it bluntly, "Because you have seen me, you have believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Even for Thomas, Jesus says, that faith is not found in this way. Instead, all that we come to know of evidences only affirms but can never confirm the Christian faith. I do agree with Nathan in this: that as believers we are built up in our faith by such things. I disagree, however, with the review's assertion that it is a good method of evangelism. In some ways the evidentialist approach is dangerous and no different that excitations provided by Finney's burlesque evangelism.

The confirmation of the faith is within. Not without. And though we have a testimony to the Word in print and history none of this can excite the conscience to embrace the faith. Simply it is not something that anyone takes upon themselves. As John said, it is not by man's will and Paul would say that these things are spiritually, not carnally (physically) discerned. Did it matter what God did among the children of Israel? No, it did not. If we were today to discover undeniable evidence of the death of Egypt's firstborn and of the first passover, likewise, it would not impress the dead minds of men that are fixed in repressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Contrary to evidentialism, which is just another form of sacramental instrumentalism, the Scripture assigns the remedy to the willful ignorance of the rebellious:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

Arminian Perspective

2008-08-09T09:26:00.000-07:00

The way a person looks at something is their per/spect. Presuppostitions are things that we suppose before hand. A biblical hermeneutic is as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics states:

that... which historically signified the rules of exegesis, may properly be extended to cover all that is involved in the process of perceiving what the biblical revelation means and how it bears on our lives.

To be consistent, rules of interpretation, hermeneutics, must be in place at first, presuppositions, so that we might gain the right view, perspective, on Scripture. Below I will place in the context of several Scriptures the Arminian hermenuetic and see where it leads.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

For while all people were still weak, at the right time Christ died for all the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for all people in that while all people were still sinners, Christ died for all people. Since, therefore, all people have now been justified by his blood, much more shall all people be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while all people were enemies all people were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that all people are reconciled, shall all people be saved by his life. More than that, all people also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all people have now received reconciliation.

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

For all people were whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And all people were whom he predestined he also called, and all people were whom he called he also justified, and all people were whom he justified he also glorified.

Before anyone cries foul, let me take a just parts of these that Arminians claim are universal statements.

Out of the first:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

And out of the second:

And those whom he predestined he also called

Arminians claim that Christ died for all men without exception, everywhere thoughout all time past, present and future, and will not deny that "the ungodly" for whom Christ died is universal in scope. They will assert that "sinners" likewise is universal. They make no distinction between the general call and the effectual call of the Gospel. Therefore, call is always universal in its singular meaning and scope such that all people were called. So, it is not illegitimate to replace within these verses those words that attach themselves to the hermenuetic of the Arminian perspective.

When using the Arminian perspective we cannot help but arrive at universal atonement. As many have recognized, rationlistic approaches to Scripture that do not recognize proper differential meanings for any given context, as is the case with Arminianism, gave rise to universalism.

Though many of those of the Calvinistic persuasion will call Arminianism orthodox, when taken to its conclusion it is not. This led George Whitefield to thoroughly denounce it as being one with the enemies of Christ:

How then, in holding this doctrine, do we join with modern unbelievers in making the Christian revelation unnecessary? No, dear Sir, you mistake. Infidels of all kinds are on your side of the question. Deists, Arians, and Socinians arraign God's sovereignty and stand up for universal redemption. I pray God that dear Mr. Wesley's sermon, as it has grieved the hearts of many of God's children, may not also strengthen the hands of many of his most avowed enemies!

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

2008-07-31T16:51:00.000-07:00

Arminianisms hold one thing in common and that is a view that man is the gatekeeper of his own salvation. Primarily that there is some goodness in man by which he can place trust in Christ apart from the effectual working of God. Essentially, it devolves from a diminution of the view of human depravity and, as Packer's article indicates, results in a tendency to a heretical view of Biblical doctrine.

Here is J. I. Packer on the subject.

...But why should Arminianisms vary in this way? The final answer is: not because Arminians are personally erratic, but because all Arminian positions are intrinsically and in principle unstable. Arminianism is a slippery slope, and it is always arbitrary where one stops on the slide down. All Arminianisms start from a rationalistic hermeneutic which reads into the Bible at every point the philosophic axiom that to be responsible before God man's acts must be contingent in relation to him. All Arminianisms involve a rationalistic restriction of the sovereignty of God and the efficacy of the cross, a restriction which Scripture seems directly to contradict. All Arminianisms involve a measure of synergism, if not strong (God helps me to save myself) then weak (I help God to save me). All Arminianisms imply the non-necessity of hearing the gospel, inasmuch as they affirm that every man can be saved by responding to what he knows of God here and now. The right way to analyze the difference between Arminianisms is to ask how far they go in working out these principles, and how far they allow evangelical checks and balances to restrain them...

First: the Bible forbids us to take a single step along the Arminian road. It clearly affirms the positions which Dort highlighted: God's absolute sovereignty; human responsibility without any measure of contingency or indeterminacy (look at Acts 2:23!); and a direct connection between the work of Christ in obtaining and applying redemption. The very name of Jesus is itself an announcement that "he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). It does not tell us that He will make all men savable, but that He will actually save those who are His. And it is in these terms that the Bible speaks throughout.

Second: if we travel the Arminian road, there are three precious things that we necessarily lose. These are: the clear knowledge of God's sovereignty in our salvation, the clear sight of Christ's glory as the Savior of His people, and the clear sense of the Christian's eternal security in the covenant of grace. Also, our piety, unless inconsistent with and superior to our principles (as John Wesley's, for instance, seems to have been), must center on the thought that at each present moment everything-future salvation, present blessing, current usefulness to God-depends on the use I make of opportunities and resources already given, for God, having made me able to do what I should do, is standing back, so to speak, waiting to see if here and now I shall do it. Self-reliance rather than dependence, strain rather than spontaneity, and an anthropocentric fixity on dedication which inhibits the theocentric instinct for doxology will thus become characteristic of our Christian lives, and the inner relaxation and gaiety witnessed to by such far-out workers for God as Paul, George Whitefield, and C. H. Spurgeon, who knew themselves to be carried along and kept every moment by the power of God, is something to which we are likely to be comparative strangers. These are sad, and saddening, losses, which impoverish the children of God in the same way that Roman Catholicism impoverishes them. There is more comfort and joy for God's children set forth in the Scriptures than the Roman and Arminian theologies allow them to possess. At this point, at least, Rous' verdict stands: Romanism and Arminianism show themselves to be all too much akin...

I agree fully with this assessment. There is no difference in the essential heart of Arminianisms and Romanism. It is salvation by works and overthrows the gospel of grace and salvation through faith in the finished work of Christ and the total effective sufficiency of it. It robs Christ of his victory over sin and us of our being justified because of his righteousness as revealed from heaven. It removes from us the the need of repentance -the renunciation of our own works- from any measure of self-effort in salvation. What is left is not a love of God that passes the understanding, that is established by knowledge of the depth of the darkness from which we have been delievered and establishes inexpressible joy, but a ladled burden of self-dependence and distrust of the sufficiency of God's providence.

What's Depraved? (Reprise)

2008-07-16T09:12:00.000-07:00

Continuing the discussion from the previous thread and post I thought it might be ripe to reference Edwards more completely concerning the imputation of Adam's guilt as congruent with the depraved nature.

What is evident, as Edwards points out, is the condition of man is that of unrighteousness at conception. Unrighteousness he posits is the negative principle. That is, when God removed the constraining influence of the positive, the righteousness of the will of God, man was then left to his own natural propensity to self-love but without the highest regard in self-love which is the love of God. It then is resolved that evil is no positive influence created by God in man but is rather the result of the negation of righteousness.

Evil in man is still, as Edwards would confirm, a reality, a thing which is created, but through negation. God does not need to place in man evil created ex nihilo, but merely to withhold his favor and evil is without the will of God that which wills its own. His favor is that constraint which is called the righteousness of God, or his will. It is not the will of his creatures, firstly, as derived from them, for what is the clay? Man's nature is as a river, the heart of a king in the hands of God, and water by its nature flows according to the constraint of the course set by the banks. Can man make God to see? Who has been God's counselor? None. It is God who has made man and the eye and given it sight to see. And more than that, he has given all that can be seen. All things, purposes, plans and means are from his hand. The negative principle does not mean that the nature itself is evil created, rather, that by the negation of the positive influence of righteousness in both nature and mind, that which was created good, and fit, does by its own tendency bend toward its own destruction being left without the unifying principle of the law of righteousness. Further, the whole creation was subjected to sin and the like principle known in physics, according to its natural bent, finds its terminus via the law of entropy in chaos.

Adam's action is not alone, nor at first where guilt resides. It cannot be, for even the "good" acts of fallen man are accounted as evil. Guilt was by imputation. It is the judgement of the righteous God who cannot abide with unrighteousness. Indeed, guilt as Edwards describes, is congruent with the nature of unrighteousness. By imputation of guilt, then, we have a legal decree, the finding of God which is assigned, not to the act, but to the individual who acted and that because man who acts is one with his nature which acts in the totality of the being. Adam's sin then is not like ours seeing as he had the righteousness of God constraining his actions and was innocent in the beginning. What we know is that he was deceived into believing that the action that he would take was righteous.

Our first exposure is in Genesis 3, and Paul tells us in Timothy as confirmation that the woman is not allowed to teach the man to reflect the original order of creation, and, to remind us of the deception that was first in Eve, who being in transgression taught her husband. Further, that he was cursed because he both listened to his wife and ate. Genesis says that Adam listened and that it was the woman's voice he heard. Adam was made first and from him is derived the woman whose position is not the dominance of her will over his, but is to be in submission to his headship, i.e., his will as a help fit for the purpose. Adam reversed the order by submitting himself to her in violation of the type which is the order of creation, itself the reflection of God's headship and his will as the primary source of will in man. When Eve fell, the conclusion is that Adam also, being one flesh, fell with her. Even though she ate first, the guilt is imputed to Adam as her head. That is the reality, for in Adam, all sinned, including Eve even though it was she and not he who first sinned. The offense Godward is to make God over into the creatures image, reversing the order or creation, now corrupted by that which opposes the will of God, exalts the will of man, and supresses the truth in unrighteousness. It is to do what Satan intimated, to make God to be unrighteous and ascend to equality with him, even above him.

One must consider that the evil tendency (the negation of righteousness) was not in Adam, nor in Eve from the creation, contrasted to James who locates it in fallen man, and not external. Rather, they were created in holiness in the image of God. The evil resided outside of them in an influential spirit called the Serpent of Old, or Satan, who Scripture declares as being what he was from the beginning. His influence was directed toward the mind and not the nature of man which was righteous. The mind operates under the influence of the nature unless some other influence impinges upon it. Unlike we who have inherited both the guilt and corruption, the faculties of Adam's mind had not yet been infected with thoughts directed only toward self-love to the negation of love of God resulting in chaos. Theirs was a righteous nature and beside it was given a righteous commandment, another influence, to guide the mind. So we have the statement that Adam's sin was not in the similitude of the many sins of his posterity. We sin because the corruption that was introduced into Adam by deception (a contradiction of the commandment) is passed along to us and resides in us. To that effect, God has assigned to man the stature of unrighteousness, removing from him the constraints of God's will which is righteous. The effect of Adam's guilt was sealed to him by God's imputation of guilt and the removal of righteousness which leads to life, simultaneously. The result was that Adam became the condemned according to his nature. We then have the history of Scripture and of all mankind, that the likeness of Adam is now transferred to his posterity rather than the likeness of God. Such that, the unrighteousness that was imaged by Satan in the Garden, Jesus assigns to man. To that end, man is continually attempting to make others over into him own image just as his father the devil did.

I will add this paper also.

As Shedd says, the reality of sin is far deeper than the superficial reality that guilt inheres in actions alone as the Arminian would propose. Guilt inheres in the nature. Nature permeates the entirety of our being. But some will say, then how was Adam accounted guilty? Was it not in the action? Again, I say, no. Guilt has to do with the declaration of God as Judge, just as righteousness has to do with God's declaration of righteousness which is foreign to man, an action outside of himself given to him. Man was not in the beginning neutral having both tendencies, therefore guilt was external to him for unrighteousness was not in him. Guilt inheres in nature precisely because God has declared the nature to be unrighteousness, not merely in an abstract way, but in truth, man has been "unrighteoussed." So also, the guilt is imputed congruently with depravity. "In the day you eat you will die." Not, in the day you eat you will become guilty, then later die. But, at once, simultaneous. "In the day" is colloquial meaning at the point of time. So later, we have Scripture using the term judgement to connote both the passing of the sentence and the execution of it as simultaneous though temporally expressed. To our feeble minds we see things from a temporally bounded perspective. But, the reality is that though man is born with an unrighteous nature and will proceed to actual sins, those sins are nothing more than the expression of one thing, sin. And sin is guilty of offense toward the nature of God by its very nature, whether it acts or not.

Man was created in innocence, but not in moral neutrality. He was created righteous. As righteous he could not sin, but God had left the will to its native freedom, being that which chooses according to the highest regard of the mind (in this sense it means volition where Shedd rightly uses Will to mean essential being or nature and all the attributes of it including its actions). It was there, in the mind, that deception entered,

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."

To this Jesus adds, what a man desires in his heart, that is what he is. So that, a man lusting after a woman has already committed adultery. It does not become sin in action but in conception (the woman saw), and conception is accomplished in the inmost place where no one knows. The entrance of the deception was below perception, precisely the definition of deception. Then, it was at the point that Eve saw, that it was concluded that she had already eaten. The corruption though entered in disguised as a beautiful creature. This does not take genius, just attention to the texts. It was by imputation, in other words, by the introduction of the lie, beyond the view of consciousness, that she was corrupted, and obviously that without her consent for no true consent is given to a lie.

The text tells us that their eyes were opened, but what it means is that their eyes were closed, blinded by the darkness that had entered and they had chosen over the light. They saw themselves as naked, where God saw them as he had clothed them. Who said they were naked? Not God. Nakedness to them became shame but it was not so, God had clothed with righteousness and nakedness was what he had clothed them with. As we can see, the doctrine of imputation is demonstrated in Satan's very actions. For it was he who introduced deprivation into Eve and she into Adam. The deception itself is guilty. The corruption itself, at once the judgement, death sentence and execution. Through Adam we have, as Scripture declares, received God's curse, he having concluded that we were all in Adam, the whole of creation, subject to sin. Which is of course the truth even though the action of our birth had not yet occurred. Therefore David says he was conceived in sin. Not his, but his by imputation and that by the negation of righteousness as a result of the curse upon Adam's kind.

Guilt then is at once congruent with and consequent of depravity. That depravity is primarily the deprivation of righteousness. It is deprivation of righteousness in nature, nature being that which permeates the entire being, body, soul and mind. Righteousness itself cannot abide with any kind of sin, whether of nature, or of the actions of mind or body. In the entrance of sin into the world, God withdrew himself by removing the righteousness which constrains the will to love of God alone. Later we see this in the veil. It is not man who has placed the barrier to entrance between God and man, (see the Garden event), but God. In fact by God's action God prevents man from doing so by the unrighteousness of man's own will. In the reconciliation that is in Christ, that veil is removed to the glory of God, through Christ's flesh, through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, effectually securing regeneration in the elect so that they can enter. Christ, who has put to death sin in his flesh has reconciled them to God in himself for the benefit of the elect and secured them forever by the vital union of the Spirit. But, no sinful choice can enter and no sin nature would will itself to, either.

As Shedd concludes, this is the great rift between one set of theologians and the other. What was begun in the Reformation was a return to the doctrine of original sin and clearer understanding than that which was held by the Pelagians of all types who rejected the doctrines of the Protestation both before and after Luther. This is what separates us, today. Misunderstanding the doctrines of the fall is the seminal beginning of all errors and offense against the doctrines of grace. The Arminian faction would contend against Shedd's statement:

"The prayer of David is the proper prayer for us to the lay of our death:
"Search me, O Lord, and try me, and see what evil ways are within me; cleanse Thou me from secret faults."
A prayer, it may be remarked, that is utterly unintelligible on the hypothesis that there is no sin deeper than consciousness."

Far then from being that it is only the conscious sin that it under the guilt of condemnation, David is repeating what he had learned by the Law, as well from his own innate sense. We must remember that the Law was added because of transgression not transgression because of the law, even though the law would produce the effect of making sin recognizably, exceedingly sinful through the unavoidable violation of it.

Let's not forget that we wage our war not against flesh and blood but against every lofty thought that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (my compilation). It is not individual Arminians, or Romanists, or any other people of Pelagian persuasions who are the real enemy. And each of us shall give an account of himself to God. Our challenge is to declare the truth and let the sword of his word divide that which is his from that which is not. It is not a new battle and all of the elect at first fight against the kingdom of God until they finally hear, "Do you kick against the goads?" I did, for I did not begin completed with this knowledge, nor have I yet arrived at a full understanding of it. Like the disciples we all believe ourselves the possessors of our own destinies at first self-assured that we have found the way until we hear the Lord say, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you."

With Isaiah let's us declare as we come into the presence of God, "Woe to me, for I am undone," recognizing that sin is the un-doing of God's will in man, of which we are all guilty. Humanistic concepts of will as mere volitions of single choices do not go deep enough into the soul well of depravity. Instead, rightly defined, Will is the entire being according to Shedd's usage as expressed by Isaiah's totally coming apart in the presence of the Lord, peirced to the deepest part, divided soul and spirit, searched in the inmost being, where secrets of the hearts of men so desperately wicked that no man can know it, reside. That depravity is not found just in the foaming of the surface waters, nor in the merky deep and darkness below, but issues forth from the very sping of its existence. A Reformation understanding then, is not that of the will as a ready instrument wielded distinct from self, but Will is the wielder, himself. Will is what Shedd says, in concert with Edwards, man is, and man is born bound by a creature's nature, a child of wrath, exhaustively unrighteous, thoroughly.

So we do not speak a common language when speaking of will. For we do not mean mere volition as the Arminian formula would have it. Rather, we speak of that which is reflective of the whole image of God into which we were created. It follows then, we also have a greater appreciation of what it means to love the Lord God with the whole mind, the whole soul, the whole spirit, the entire substance of our being and not just our volitions, and then why it is that total depravity is the only other reality, and being sin, stands guilty of hating God with its entire being and not just the actions that flow from it. Knowing this, we also gain a deeper appreciation for repentance, and forgiveness, for those who love much have been forgiven much by he who has become sin for us. With Isaiah we know our native state, but also who it is that has given us the righteous confession of the lips that comes from the throne of God.

Found At Provocations and Pantings

2008-07-10T18:25:00.000-07:00

That's interesting. Saw it before. And I have heard the argument before. It was set forth by Billy Graham in fact on Larry King as is quoted in Ian Murray's Evangelicalism Divided. And we built a statue commemorating his soteriology! A soteriology, that by the "Biblicist" standard is nothing short of heresy.

Another question that this raises is the obvious ecumenical spirit that tags along with the Arminian/Calvinist divide. Two different soteriologies can be derived from the BFM. Which is all good and fine until the discussion becomes: just how is one saved?

Albert Mohler has said that no one will go to hell for another's sin. Though he equivocates on the matter, the inherited guilt of Adam, again, is a non-negotiable, and absolutely necessary for an orthodox soteriology. He signed and approved in his work on the 2000 BFM, of the reversal of the order of condemnation from the 1925 BFM, to what is now the BFM's definition of the nature of man after the fall since the 1963. (A bit of a culpability factor working there, maybe?) The denial at any level of the doctrine of original sin is foundational to all sorts of error, giving us notable myths like the age of accountability and LFW, as well as a labyrinth of sacramentalist religions.

You can see what I believe is at the heart of the world's confusion here, along with the rest of the series which began here. It is not them, it is we who allow falsehood and will not defend truth from error that gives them the right of dissent. Remove the strictures of total depravity and God's sovereignty in election, his drawing grace will fall, and there will remain only the conditions of man's vain imagination as the means of salvation. What is the difference between the typical SBC'er and an Oprah disciple if it is by synergistic means that people come to the knowledge of God? If in the end salvation requires some measure of man's effort, then the Oprahites or Osteenites for that matter, are justified in any scheme.

Osteen is the son of a former Southern Baptist. But, is that where he got his theology?

Perhaps, just perhaps, as Billy Graham said, "They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven." Oh, we might well say that we are credobaptists and all the while deny that we are a credal people. However, according to some heros of the Southern Baptists, when it comes to the final assessment it might just be that God does judge men in deference to the light that they have and what they did with it,

and not by the standards of the only way. A Southern Baptist and fellow member of Sunnyside Baptist in Cheyenne, told me just that. Wonder's where he learned it?

There are some who do not bow to the hero icons, this one for example:

Nor would such stalwarts as Tom Ascol, or the inimitable James White.

Take notice Billy Graham's position has not changed since 1960. A mere three years before the 1963 BFM was finalized by former President of the SBC, Herschel H. Hobbs, a semi-Pelagian. What should be clear is that the accomodation of such heros while ostensibly forbidden, the BFM cannot exclude. One must question how Billy Graham could be honored by the SBC with a statue,

and reject the central tenant of soteriology in the SBC, salvation in the name of Jesus only.

The final assessment is that it matters what integrity we have in the eyes of the world when we make criticisms and expect credibility. What the world sees is a house doctrinally divided and unsure of its doctrinal foundations and history. What once passed the muster of love of truth in the Conservative Resurgence, must again come to the fore and reestablish the Protestant doctrines upon which the SBC was founded. But, as long as it holds to Romanistic free-will and humanistic goodness inherent in man, as opposed to the great hinge pin of the Protestant Reformation, the bondage of the will, and total human depravity, it will continue to feed the world the excuses it needs to not heed the call of repentance.

The only true revival will come when the truth is once again the SBC signature song. As Spurgeon said and I paraphrase, "These doctrines are the Gospel." Let the Doctrines of Grace be proclaimed and the Gospel will be reclaimed. It will cause hate and division, true enough, even attempts by the Secret 9 to subvert the truth. No matter. Truth is our life, is risen indeed and cannot die again.

The Image of God in Man According to H. H. Hobbs

2008-07-01T19:40:00.001-07:00

Only of man is it said that he was made in God's image. Since God is Spirit, this image relates to man's spiritual nature. This divine image means that God created man with a rational, emotional, and moral nature. He possesses a will with the freedom of choice. In his original creation, man was in a state of innocence with the possibility that he might choose righteousness or sinfulness, pg.51 TBFAM, c. 1971.

It cannot be mistaken that Hobbs intends in this quote to establish that God's image is being described. Hobbs states three times that it is. He then defines it. So, it is that definition that we will look at. It is actually a single thought. God is moral with will; free to choose good or evil. As I discussed before, the innocence of God in Hobbs finds its establishment in the "first choice" that God made. Hobbs defined virtue as that which must proceed from choice. Innocence is neutrality then; having done neither good nor evil. It was discovered that the first action of God was to establish laws outside himself that he could possibly violate.

It is here that we encounter a problem with Hobbs' Theology. God is transcendent, not just timeless. Time has no reference in God who is eternal. The problem then is how does it eventuate in God that an action happens. Time is bound in creation. In God time is seen as complete just as all that is in God is a simplicity. Each attribute and characteristic of Deity is at once and One, not without the others. He is not a complexity; he is undivided perfection of perfections. Time is complete in the mind of God just as a line does not proceed from point A to point B but is AB. It conjoins logical order. At the same time, however, God does not comprehend it in process moving from A to B. The result of process is time and as I said time is within creation, bound by it, and more specifically, the resultant of an object's (created matter) motion in space.

Then we can see the dilemma. If God is a moral agent in the same way that man is, then God is not Spirit, but has a body which traverses distances. That is not the case as Hobbs himself admits, "God is Spirit." God cannot change and so there never was a "time" when God was merely innocent and by action chose the good, gained virtue and became righteous. But, this is the moral agency that Hobbs has introduced in God's image in man.

I will digress a short bit to examine man again in the original creation. If in God there was no time in which he was not righteous, and he being the perfection of perfections created man in his image, then man was not innocent. Here again I remind the reader what Hobbs' definition of innocence is:

Created in a state of innocence, man was neither righteous nor sinful. Before becoming either he must exercise the right of choice, hence the temptation experience... pg. 51-52

Of God Hobbs' states:

Thus the "righteousness of God" is not an attribute of God, but an activity... pg. 59; This is God's self-affirmation...connotes what God is in his nature, pg. 37; ...God has placed certain limitations upon himself...to act as he wills in keeping with his own laws and accordance to his nature as righteousness... pg. 66.

This may seem confusing, and I agree, Hobbs was confused. As was discussed in the last post on this subject and furthered here, Hobbs proffers libertarian freewill in God and by doing so confuses the eternal righteous nature of God with action. He said:

He is active, progressive, free to choose... pg 36.

When put together, eternality becomes something quite different in Hobbs than in Scripture. His image is of a changing God, whose methods change and God is seen in reference to time, viewing the creation as an externality, progressive, because the nature of God is itself internally progressive and time bound in some unexplained way such that God has the power of contrary choice so that he might attain virtue (righteousness). Hobbs' said, "Created in a state" and we do not have to look far in Scripture to see that the "state" was the image of God and is exactly what Hobbs meant.

But, is that the way man was created? Scripture reveals that man was created good and in the image of God who is eternally blessed; the perfection of perfections, the Highest Good. Created with rationality and able to understand right from wrong, man was created without the power of contrary choice. He was created with a nature that was good (righteous) and in the creation each kind produces only after its own kind. His mind was perfect in order that he might bring glory to God. Genesis three tells us that man was deceived. How could that be?

Unlike God, who is Good and the perfection of perfections, man is a created being and all that does not apply to God, applies to man. That is, man is time bound, progressive and changeable. He is changeable by the very nature of what it means to be created. The confessions of the past say things like malleable, unstable and so forth to express the idea that man can change. Being a rational creature, Satan did not approach with contrary choice. He did not present "evil" to Eve, but good. He did contradict God and challenged the veracity of God's Goodness. That is the whole point. What first appeared as right became wrong and wrong became right. Eve chose what she saw to be good, perfectly in keeping with what God had created her to do. In opposition to what libertarian freewill would postulate, Eve's will was bound to choose the good. The natural liberty of the will inheres in the very nature of will, but not in the nature of the mind, for it was founded rationally sound, nor of the righteous nature of man's spirit into which he was created for what fellowship has unrighteousness with righteousness. The power of contrary choice does not enter in until the fall, being the very nature of Satan to contradict what is good by lies. And, again in the new creation, man's will is fixed, not by the inherent nature of the will which naturally is free, but by man's new spiritual nature and mind. And more, those have been sealed by union with Christ through the gift of the Holy Spirit and are incorruptible. It was the mind that Satan attacked proposing "good". The spiritual nature of man which was righteous and her perfect mind are what bent the will to chose to eat of that knowledge of the fruit of good and evil when she was convinced that it was good to do so.

Following what Hobbs has said, it is logical but against what Scripture says. Hobbs says on page 52:

In her innocence the woman showed her tendency toward righteousness by protesting on behalf of God's purpose.

Now this would be fine if indeed Hobbs believed that righteousness was the eternal nature of God and that man had been created after that image so that only good flows from it. But, Hobbs furthers his thesis on page 53:

It is when man through selfish ambition seeks to be God in his own life and will that he sins. It was this very thing which snared Eve, which shows that she also had a tendency toward sin. And this tendency overcame her tendency toward righteousness.

There we have it. The image of God in man according to H.H. Hobbs is man created with a nature that possessed innocence and the tendency to do either good or evil. This neutrality is necessary for the preservation of LFW of which H.H. Hobbs was a proponent, solidly; Pelagian in his creation scenario, semi-Pelagian in his post-fall view of man. And, like most Arminians, he contended of necessity that Christ died for all to restore to man that ability to choose righteousness or unrighteousness. Which in effect, through prevenient grace, balances the scales as if to make man innocent once more, the Pelagian man, needing only to choose Christ to be righteous. As before, this inverts the image, placing righteousness as the outcome of choice rather than the cause of it.

According to H.H. Hobbs, God created man in God's image, both good and evil. Such is the basis of the Arminianism among the Southern Baptists. As a SB I studied Hobbs twenty years ago and had no idea what it really meant. Where were those who did and should have taught me? That is a generation and now it has been nearly two since his book was printed. That is not all of it. For a century this theology has dominated the SBC landscape. To wit, my former pastor and his assistant both held that God was both good and evil or at least capable of it for with God all things are possible and you don't want to put God in a box... Adults who sat in Sunday School with me were convinced that Adam and Eve both were endowed with pride-filled lust as Hobbs describes. When challenged, many Southern Baptists will see this as offensive to their own knowledge. The repugnance of the concept of God being anything but Good is revolted against by the Spirit in them. Still, the scope of the influence of Hobbsism is vast. Try mentioning that a heretical view has been taught in the SBC for one hundred years, that a former President wrote the systematic Sunday School materials that indoctrinated tens of millions, and you'll be ananthematized as a heretic yourself. None one touches the icons in the SBC, be they men or myth.

In the long running debate between the Arminianism and Reformed/Calvinism, this is where the Arminian perspective leads. LFW will create the Force, but it cannot reveal the God of Creation. And, it destroys any hope of a righteousness which is revealed from heaven, and given to us in the person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

The Image of God In Herschel Hobbs

2008-05-31T09:47:00.000-07:00

There is no such thing as "the Baptist faith" or "the historic Baptist faith." These phrases imply a creedal faith, something which Baptists have always avoided...pg 10.

Hobbs proclaimed in his Baptist Faith And Message commentary. But, others sayBaptists always have been creedal. As James A. Smith says:

Either the opponents are unaware of Baptist history or they willfully misrepresent our history. In either case, the historical record on this matter is clear and convincing: Baptists are creedal, and we have used confessions of faith as doctrinal measuring tools in employing our denominational servants.

One might ask why Hobbs would make this gaffe. Further, Elmer L. Towns infers that a vote could be taken which would force Calvinists from the fold of the SBC. Which is the same as saying that a vote could be taken forcing Southern Baptists to adhere to the approved creed as interpreted by the party policy police.

My series on the image of God in man and the fall was intended to lead us to this point: Was Herschel Hobbs wrong and did error lead millions of Southern Baptists into the morass of doctrinal ignorance? Well, he was wrong about the Baptists not being a creedal people so there might just be some reason to doubt the dependability of other things he said concerning the faith. My last insertion of conspiracy data indicated that Hx3 was a Freemason. That leads us to even greater speculation as to his ability to discern truth. Whether he was or not a Mason, I will let others confirm. I insinuated that the dualism of Masonic teachings is similar to Hobbs.

I will be quoting out of the 1971 edition of The Baptist Faith and Message Commentary, Convention Press, Nashville Tennessee, authored by Hx3. There have been revisions, but as of now I do not have access to them. If anyone sees where what I quote has been corrected in later editions, please inform me. If anyone has a link to online editions, it would be greatly appreciated.

This commentary was widely distributed and studied. My copy came from my former Adult Sunday School teacher and Senior Deacon who also left the SBC church from which I self-expelled. Just how many over the past half-century were affected by the doctrine contained in it is unsearchable. But, I know this for a fact: adults with whom I interacted in Sunday School and elsewhere, believed as Herschel taught. A half century before this commentary was published, Hx3's theology was the prominent influential teaching base of the SBC. In total, nearly a century worth of Southern Baptists have been indoctrinated into the Hobbsian paradigm. It should be no wonder then that the Founders' doctrines appear an intrusion into the SBC. Let's then examine The Image of God In Herschel Hobbs.

Hx3 quotes on page 17 of his commentary "It is the purpose of this statement of faith and message to set for certain teachings which we believe" from the 1963 BFM introduction, setting it up as definitional and his own commentary on it as definitional of what it means to be both Christian and Baptist. Of God's omniscience he says:

God has all knowledge. He knows all things simultaneously...immediate...does not necessarily mean that he predetermined them...

Of omnipotence:

The only limits to his power are self-imposed...cannot lie or act contrary to his...laws...

Of miracles:

...acts of God contrary to man's knowledge of natural law, but not contrary to God's knowledge of such...

pg 36-37. Hobbs completes this thought in his section on God's purpose of Grace:

In the abstract, God's sovereignty means that he can act as he will without any outside counsel of permission. But in the concrete, as taught in the Bible, God has placed certain limitations upon himself. In that sense his sovereignty must be viewd as his power to act as he wills in keeping with his own laws and according to his naure as righteousness and love, pg. 66.

Hobb's had said earlier that Deut. 6:4 denies dualism, pg. 37.

What can be noted here is that even though Hx3 denies dualism, by stating that God has erected a set of laws that he obeys he has set up a dualism within God that is no different than dualism. More precisely, God, according to this scheme has set laws and has subjugated himself to them such that they are actually outside of God as a god to whom he must give account. This I suppose was necessary for Hobbs to be able to express the image of God in man who has choice. Dualism can also be formulated as alternatives. But, free-choice as was held by Hobbs means more than just alternatives, for law speaks of that which can be violated. Thus, for Hobbs, God's freedom includes the freedom of contrary choice. It is this way: God could choose to violate his own laws but does not because of his nature. However, if it is indeed the case that God has LFW then he could. And in fact, if LFW in God is true, it must be true in all cases. As the perfection of perfections, the infinite goodness of God's nature extends to every aspect of his being. If a choice of God could be made contrary to the infinitude of his goodness, it would be less than that goodness, and consequently other than God. Therefore, laws which might be violated even though erected by God establishes another other than God to which God is subject- a god outside of God. The final analysis is that God making laws to govern himself is contrary to his infinite nature, which is good. Another way to look at this is to say that God has the power of contemplation of alternative choice which includes the ability to conceive of himself as violating the greatest good choice by opting for the lesser. The power of contrary choice in God then would necessitate an inherent ability to contradict himself. That is to say, that God is both good and evil essentially; yin and yang.

Do I actually think that Herschel thought of God having the power of contrary choice? We'll have to see next time as we examine more closely Hx3 view of the image of God in man.