Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Had to post this, simply amazing!

Bible-optional Christianity

12/28/2010 - Alan Kurschner
William Lane Craig

"As for your two moral objections, the first is an objection to the doctrine of original sin. But once more, that doctrine is not universally affirmed by Christians and is not essential to the Christian faith. So don’t let that be a stumbling block for you."

Paul of Tarsus

12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 5:12-21

21For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

45Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45-49.

H.T Steve Hays

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Merry Xmas All...and to all a goodnight!

1.        Behold the Christ of God and see
The glory of the Godhead Three,
The Father, Spirit, and the Son
Revealed in the incarnate One.

2.        The fulness of the Godhead dwells
In Him who ransomed us from hell.
We know the mighty God above
Through our Redeemer's work of love.

3.        Great, holy, sovereign, just, and true,
God's merciful and gracious too!
In justice He has slain His Son
That He might save His chosen ones!

4.        In Christ, the Mediator man,
God has fulfilled salvation's plan.
He magnified His holy law,
Yet saves His people from the fall!


Thursday, December 09, 2010

The Case for a Definite and Complete Atonement. Part 3/3

The objection which the Arminians offer is frivolous: 'that there is a twofold intercession of Christ: one universal, which is made for the whole world, of which intercession Isaiah speaks, 53.12, and agreeably to which He is said to have prayed for His murderers, Luke 23.34; another particular, which is made for believers only, which is spoken of, John 9 and Rom. 8.'

The objection rests not on any foundation, either in Scripture or reason.

As Christ is always heard and answered by the Father, John 11.42, if He prays for all, all will be saved. The doctrine of universal intercession is not taught by the Prophet Isaiah, where he says, 'he made intercession for the transgressors,' Isa. 12; for it is not said that He made intercession for all, but for many whose character is delineated by the prophet, in a preceding verse, as those who shall be justified by Christ.

It is not said, Luke 23.4, that He prayed for all those who crucified Him, but for those who knew not what they did; and we are assured that these obtained pardon, no doubt the fruit of the prayer which Christ offered up on the cross to the Father, Acts 2.3.

Nor if Christ, through the impulse of humane affections of love, prayed for those who perished, is it to be considered that the intercessory prayers, which He offered as Mediator and in the discharge of His special office, are to be extended to others than the elect given Him by the Father. To the elect Christ Himself restricts His intercessory prayers.

3. The inseparable connection between the gift of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit bears the most conclusive testimony to the definite atonement.

As these two gifts, the most excellent which God has bestowed on us, are always in Scripture joined together as cause and effect, John 16.7, Gal. 4.4, 6, Rom. 8.9, 1 John 3.24, they must be of equal extent and go together; so that the Son is not given to acquire salvation for any others than those to whom the Spirit was given to apply the salvation procured. No reason can be assigned why the gift of the Son should be more extensive than the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It is plain that the Holy Spirit is given to none but the elect. Hence, if there be any harmony between the work of the Son and that of the Holy Spirit, in the economy of salvation, Christ was given to die for the elect, and for them only. Pertinent to this purpose is the argument of the Apostle Paul, in which, from the giving of Christ, he infers the communication of every blessing. 'He that spared not his own Son, but freely delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?' Rom. 8.32.

The apostle reasons from the greater to the less. Surely He who gave His Son, which incontrovertibly was the greater gift, will not refuse to give us faith and all other saving blessings, which are the less; and this the rather, because Christ, by delivering Himself up, has merited for us, together with salvation, all those gifts. Whence the conclusion is inevitable: either all those blessings shall be given to the reprobate, if Christ died for them; or if they are not given them, which is granted by all, then Christ did not die for them, i.e., He did not die for all.

This is not answered by alleging that the apostle speaks of Christ's being given in a special manner to the believers. For, as was said above, the supposition of a universal giving is gratuitous, and nowhere countenanced in Scripture; and since faith is a fruit of Christ's death, it cannot be a condition antecedent to His death. Further, since, according to the order which is laid down by our learned opponents themselves, the decree concerning Christ's death was antecedent to the decree relative to bestowing faith; it is inconceivable how at one and the same time, and in the self-same simple act, Christ could be delivered up for all, and for some only.

4. Another argument is, the superlative love of Christ towards those for whom He died. He loved them with the most ardent affection. Greater love has no one, than that one should lay down his life for his friend, John 15.13. In the same exalted strain does the Apostle Paul extol the love of Christ: he speaks of it as truly wonderful and unheard of among men. 'Scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would dare even to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us', Rom. 5.7, 8.

But this cannot be said of all men, and every man.

The Case for a Definite and Complete Atonement. Part 2/3

To no purpose will our opponents reply, that 'the giving of Christ was conditional, not absolute; that the condition was that all who would by faith receive the offered salvation, should be made partakers of it; and since this was not to be the case with all, it is not surprising that they derive no advantage from it.'

This is a begging of the question; it is without foundation in Scripture, which nowhere mentions such a conditional giving of Christ. Though faith is proposed as a means and condition necessary to the reception of Christ, and the enjoyment of the blessings offered in the Gospel, yet it does not follow that it was a condition to the giving of Christ, since faith itself is a gift of grace and one of the fruits of Christ's being delivered up for sinners.

Further, if the giving of Christ rested upon any condition, the condition must depend either upon God or upon man. The latter of these can be affirmed by none but a Pelagian; if the former be affirmed, then it comes to this, that Christ is said to be given to us as a Saviour by God on these terms, that He will bestow Him on us on condition of His working faith in us; which faith, however, He will not give, though He alone is able to give it. How glaring an absurdity!

Our view is further confirmed by the connection of that twofold relation to us, which Christ sustains: the relation of a surety, and that of a Head. He is our surety, that He may acquire salvation for us, by rendering to justice that satisfaction which it demands. He is our Head, in order to apply this salvation to us, by working in us faith and repentance, through the effectual operation of his Holy Spirit upon our hearts.

Hence, as He is not given as a Head to all men, but to His members only, or, which is the same thing, to the elect, who are actually to partake of salvation, He cannot be the surety or sponsor of any other than these. Of whomsoever He is the surety, He is also the head. The one cannot be extended farther than the other.

This also appears from the connection between the death and resurrection of Christ, in which there is the same twofold relation. Since He died as surety, He must rise as Head, as the reasons for His death and resurrection are the same; nor can any reason be given, why the ground of the one should be more extensive than that of the other.

Hence it is, that the Apostle Paul speaks of these as being equal in efficacy and extent: 'Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification', Rom. 4.25. 'That he died for all, that they which live, should not live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again', 2 Cor. 4.15.

Hence it cannot be said that He died for any others than those for whom He rose, because no one will be a partaker of the fruits of Christ's death, unless by His resurrection. But that He did not rise as a Head to confer salvation upon all, is self-evident.

2. The same doctrine is established by the connection between the atonement and the intercession of Christ. As they are both parts of His priestly office, they must be of the same extent; so that for all for whom He made satisfaction, He should also intercede, and not make atonement for those who will never have a place in His intercession.

The object of His propitiation and of His appearance in the presence of God must be one, since the Apostles Paul and John represent their connection as indissoluble, 1 John 2.1, 2, Rom. 8.34. That He does not intercede for all, but only for those who are given Him by the Father, Christ Himself expressly declares: 'I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world', John 17.9. When it is so much more easy to pray for any one than to lay down life for them, will any one say that Christ would die for those for whom He would not pray?

Will they say that at the very moment before His death He would refuse His prayers on behalf of those for whom He is just about to shed His blood?

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

The Case for a Definite and Complete Atonement. Part 1/3

The Case for a Definite and Complete Atonement

By Francis Turretin

Francis Turretin

1. We argue that the atonement was definite, from the fact that Christ was destined to die for none but those who were given him by the Father. All men universally were not given to Christ but a limited number only. Since, in the council of the Father which regulated Christ's death and defined its object, there was a designation, not only of Christ as Mediator, but also of those for whose redemption and salvation He was to suffer; it is plain that He could die for those only who were in this sense given Him.

Here we may remark a twofold donation. One of Christ to men, another of men to Christ. Christ was given to men for the purpose of saving them and men to Christ that through Him they might be saved. The former is referred to in Isa. 9.6 and 49.6, as well as in all those places in which He is said to be given and sent to us; the latter is alluded to in the places where mention is made of those given to Christ, as in John 17.2, 6,12, and 6.37.

Seeing this twofold giving is reciprocal, each of them must be of the same extent; so that Christ is given for none but those who are given to Him, and all those are given to Christ for whom He is given. Now, it is abundantly plain that some men only; and not all men, were given to Christ. This is asserted in many texts of Scripture, where those who are given to Him are distinguished from other men. 'Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. I have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou hast given me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me', John 17.2,6.

The Scripture designates those whom the Father gave Him by such phrases as these: the people whom He foreknew, Rom. 11.2; heirs and children of promise, Rom. 9.8; the seed of Abraham, not carnal, but spiritual, both of the Jews and Gentiles, Rom. 4.13, Gal. 3.18, Heb. 2.16; His people, His body, the Church, Matt. 1.21, Eph. 5.23; vessels of mercy prepared to glory, Rom. 9.24; chosen in Christ, predestinated to the adoption of sons and to conformity to His image, Rom. 8.30, Eph. 1.4, 5; and the posterity of the second Adam, all of whom are to be quickened in Christ, in opposition to the posterity of the first Adam, in whom all die, 1 Cor. 1 5.22, 23. From all which it appears, that Christ was not given for all of all nations, but for a limited number only.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Norm Geisler---Heretic. Plain and simple, and oh yeah...Nitric Acid!

I know many shall call me out on this but I do not care anymore.
I simply do not care.

If the man believes what he says in this video and the others associated with it "as in a whole series" on God's Sovereignty, then the man is a heretic. Plain and simple.

In fact, just in this video alone he really and truly advocates the main tenant of OPEN THEISM.

There, I said what others will not say.

The god of the "possibilities and the best kind of all possible worlds" is what OPEN THEISM as heresy teaches, and so too does this man Norman Geisler.

There. I said it.
Proclaim the real truth and be proud no matter what men and even good men shall say.


And if Jesus is suffering and going through all that he did for "everyone", then what hope do I have for me, when Judas and Pharoah recieved as much for them that I did.

What hope is that to live by?

And as for "miracles so called" being very rare, what then of all the people every day being saved by the greatest miracle of all, namely regeneration or the new birth?
So much for the free will idea of many people everywhere coming to Christ.
Which is it?
Many miracles or few miracles?

Such is the inconsistency of Arminianism/Semi Palagianism, Such is the idea of open heresy.

Some ask me if Arminians, "real" arminians are saved, and I say the following.

Many might be saved in their inconsistency, but many more might actually be as lost as the city of Alantis. That is my sincere belief after years of interaction with many hundreds of Arminians.

I would rather be standing with George Whitfield than John Wesley on the great day of Judgement any day of the week.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Religion has caused more death and wars than anything else. Really?

Book excerpt:

Religion the greatest danger to world peace? Think again

Contrary to what anti-religious zealots such as [Sam] Harris assert, throughout history far more lives have been snuffed out by faith-hating fanatics than by religious believers.

Historical demographers estimate that, in the 350 years between 1478 and 1834, the Spanish Inquisition was responsible for the execution of between 2,000 (Encyclopedia Britannica) and 32,000 people (Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, 1987.)

That works out to about ninety-seven people a year- a ghastly number, to be sure, but a far cry from the "millions" routinely cited by secular fundamentalists.

As for the "witch hunts," another example Harris and others give as irrational religious fanaticism, the British historian Norman Davies estimates 50,000 people, primarily women, were executed as witches over a four-hundred year period-an average of about 125 a year.

Yet as horrible as these examples of religious intolerance may be, they pale in comparison with the single-minded, bloodthirsty, satanic fury unleashed upon the innocent by secular fundamentalists-those militantly atheistic regimes that sought to expunge religious belief and "bourgeois" morality represented intolerable obstacles to social progress.

According to research conducted by the political scientist Rudolph Rummel at the University of Hawaii, the officially atheist states of the Communist bloc committed more acts of genocide than any societies in governments in the twentieth century-communist, socialist, fascist-equals about 170 million.

  • USSR: 61 million people murdered 1917-1987
  • Communist China: 35,2 million people murdered 1949-present
  • Mao's army: 3.4 million people murdered 1923-1949
  • Nazi Germany: 20 million people murdered 1932-1945
  • Communist Poland: 1.6 million people murdered 1945-1948
  • Communist Cambodia: 2 million people murdered 1975-1979
  • Communist Vietnam: 1.6 million people murdered 1945-1975
  • Communist Yugoslavia: 1 million people murdered 1944-1987
  • Anti-Christian Mexican Revolution: 1.4 million people murdered 1900-1920
  • Turkey:1.8 million people murdered 1900-1918
  • Pakistan: 1.5 million people murdered 1958-1987
  • Japan: 5.9 million people murdered 1936-1945
...Rummel's conclusion is as shocking as it is inescapable: War wasn't the most deadly evil to afflict humanity in the twentieth century. Government was! And not just any government, but atheist government.

As a result, ordinary people-whether religious or not-might be forgiven their general skepticism when today's secular fundamentalists talk about the "intolerance" and "violence" of biblical religion or the people who believe in it.

In terms of raw numbers-which is the only kind of evidence that rationalists such as Harris claim to accept-the evidence is incontrovertible: Freed of any moral restraint, believing that the ends justify the means, scoffing at the notion that they will ever answer to a power higher than themselves, the murderous dictators of atheistic regimes feel little hesitation in committing mass murder if they believe it will advance their more "rational," more "scientific" social aims.

I realize that the above information does not automatically mean that atheism is false. Nor do we believe (or mean to imply) that all atheists are bad people. We know some that are very nice.

The purpose of this book excerpt was to challenge the often proclaimed statement that "religion has caused more death and wars than anything else," or an objection like it.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Religion of Peace again presented.

A Request for My Muslim Friends

11/10/2010 - James White
For those of the Muslim faith who abhor violence and murder, could you direct me, please, to the fatwas that are being pronounced from recognized Islamic centers of jurisprudence against the Muslims who are busily murdering the People of the Gospel in Iraq? Here is an example from today. I know there are Muslims who believe such actions are wrong, but I would like to see the official fatwas against this kind of activity. Please use the Contact link on the web page to provide the URLs to these statements. Thank you! 

And then we have-------------------

And a Canadian Muslim Responds....

11/10/2010 - James White
A radical Muslim who has been banned from our chat channel decided to provide a glowing example of the problems Islam has with its followers by sending in this e-mail:


Subject: Islam



- Murder all cross worshipers in Iraq and send the survivors to USA and let them stay with Bush. Hows that?

I Agree:


Well there you go! Thanks to this Canadian Muslim, who lives in the Toronto area (in a nice area of town from what I'm told by those up in that area), for showing us the love he has for "cross worshipers." Of course, we do not worship the cross, but we worship the one who gave His life upon the cross to redeem guilty sinners and bring us peace with the Father. And it is that One, the Incarnate Son, prophesied long before in the Scriptures, the eternal Son of God, fully God and fully Man, who is the only hope this man will ever have of standing before God without experiencing His wrath. I pray God will be merciful to him and open his eyes to the glory of Christ Jesus.

Meanwhile, another Muslim (I won't give his name unless he wants me to---I have interacted with him before) wrote and basically said my request was silly. In essence, he said you won't find such fatwas since that issue was settled long before, and Islam condemns the killing of innocent people. Well, that's wonderful---so why is it that men like Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood mass murderer (who not only killed adults, but shot and killed a pregnant woman), are treated as heroes in the Islamic world? I pointed out that in the thinking of men like the Canadian Muslim above, there are no innocent people! Since we are all born Muslims, and then are perverted into Christians or Jews or whatever, then none of us are innocent, in their thinking. That's how they get around these things. I am glad for all the Muslims who think this is a "done deal," but when I see my brothers and sisters dying daily around the world, I am left wondering why the word can't be gotten out just a bit better by Muslim leaders, you know?

Note by Tartanarmy,

Here is what I think. If Islam teaches Muslims that they can deceive Christians ( Al Takeyyawhen they are not in power, or to defend Muslims, then why would anyone be surprised if Muslims are not coming forward en mass to speak out against the violence done to Christians?
How can we trust Islam in any meaningful way? That is my dilemma.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

From AOMIN.....Jeff Downs

Golden Chain

11/02/2010 - Jeff Downs
Dr. Joseph Pipa, president of Greenville Seminary recently spoke at the Oklahoma Conference on Reformed Theology on the topic of the "Golden Chain of Redemption (Romans 8:29-30)." I am currently taking Christ & Salvation with Dr. Pipa, some of the same things mentioned in class are presented in this lectures. The advantage you have is you is that he is not going to ask you questions about what you read. The disadvantage is that the lectures total only five hours (the class is 3 hrs. every Wednesday over a semester - certainly more intense).

I've listened to part of the lecture on Predestination and here is my favorite statement:
Some may say “because I am elect, it doesn’t really matter how I live or what I do. Well the one thing I can say for sure about you is that you might be elect, but you are not yet converted.”


I do not know about you, but that comment seems not only a contradiction, but in fact, a sentiment that pushes works over grace, but of course I may be wrong.

Then again, I have never yet met a so called "elect" person who ever said such a thing.....


Sunday, October 17, 2010

Saturday, October 09, 2010

James White interviewed about Rick Warren.

I was forced at gunpoint to join Mike Abendroth (one of the nefarious and widely feared Abendroth Brothers Gang) on his No Compromise Radio Program today. What was worse, he forced me to listen to Rick Warren's presentation at the DG Conference. Very painful. 350 pithy platitudes strung together on citations of the Message and the Living Bible interspersed with psychology and repeated references to how uber cool Saddleback is. But, I listened, because I was forced to! And then Mike made me go on the air and give a report! It was a traumatic experience, but I got through it.  James White
          Click here to listen!

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Pit bull-related fatalities....Please consider.

Yet again, another incident here in Australia results in two elderly people being mauled by this breed of dog.

Why is it, this breed has such a bad reputation?
Do the research and educate yourself as to why. The truth is out there if you care to find it.


It is now generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation; however, the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities is disputed.[48] One point of view is that pit bulls are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spay/neuter for all pit bulls, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from owning pit bulls.[49][50] Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution to the problem of dangerous dogs than breed-specific legislation.[51][52]

A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, e.g., forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas from which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public places.[53] Finally, some governments, such as in Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to slowly eliminate the population through natural attrition.[54][55]

Fatalities reported in the United States (2005–2009)

The following table summarizes the number of pit bull-related fatalities in the United States from 2005–2009 as reported by news organizations:
Dog Bite-related Fatalities in the United States.[44]
Year Total Involving pit bull-type dogs
2005 28 17 (62%)
2006 29 15 (52%)
2007 34 18 (53%)
2008 23 15 (65%)
2009 30 14 (47%)   

Silver tongue Warren......!!

Monday, October 04, 2010

Lest we forget....Hmmm

Paul told us that the purpose of the Body of Christ is to stir the Jews to jealousy. We are to share with them the Gospel and therefore the message that Messiah has come.

Here we have a series of videos from Synagogue 3000 which was held in 2005.
 Just to remind everyone who may start talking again about Rick Warren and the Desiring God conference. If you watch the videos below you shall see why Warren is the great speaker he is, and he is.
But my problem is about whether Christians are discerning enough to see through what many of our sound teachers cannot see through. We shall see.

Remember, these are not Christians. These are Jewish leaders Warren is talking to.
They have no interest in Christ. Yet Rick Warren is more than happy to help them grow their synagogues and help them become "Purpose Driven".

Remember, I didn't say this...this is straight from the horse's mouth!
Also, please note where Warren actually apologises to this Jewish audience for bringing up Jesus!!
I kid you not. (Half way through short video 3 below)

Rick Warren is known to adapt to whatever group he is preaching to. It saddens me so many Godly men and women listened to this wolf in sheeps clothing. I love John Piper but He should be ashamed for allowing such a luke warm man to feed His flock. 

3.  (Pardon me for talking about Christian Jesus!)

Thursday, September 30, 2010

White Horse prophecy

Interesting... I wonder if Glenn Beck believes he is the man to fulfill this prophecy?

Which Sword?

Several new MP3s from John W. Robbins have been published at the Trinity Foundation (under Miscellaneous Lectures at the bottom of the page). I found John’s answer to a question at the end of one of his lectures to be very powerful, especially considering John’s background.

It’s very tempting and it’s very deceptive for conservatives to go along with a guy like Pat Buchanan because he says some things they like. But his theology and his philosophy is pure poison.

So the question you have to ask yourself is – and this applies to all sorts of things in the political arena.

Anti-abortion for example – Am I going to work together with people who deny the gospel in order to accomplish a political end?

Which is more important? Is it more important to be faithful to the gospel, to be faithful to Christ, or to get a law passed regarding something desirable? Which is more important?

The religious right has made the wrong choice for decades. They say, yes, we can work together with Jews. We can work together with Roman Catholics. We can work together with unbelievers of various sorts. You know, Mormons are strong on the family, so we’ll work together with Mormons – which is a real joke if you read about Mormon theology. We can work together with them all in order to accomplish our political ends.

So they compromise on everything important in order to accomplish something that is going to be temporary at best. They don’t realize that the free societies we have came about precisely because of the preaching of the gospel. That’s why we have this free society, or what’s left of it. And if that preaching of the gospel is muted or compromised or ended altogether, there is no hope for any political action.

If you’re going to take political action that is going to compromise the gospel, then you are sealing your own doom. Over the past 50 years, conservatives have spent tens of billions of dollars lobbying, trying to elect candidates, trying to organize in various ways. When I was a kid, I was out passing out literature for Barry Goldwater, back in 1964.

And what has it gained? Are we any better off, to borrow a campaign slogan – are we better off today than we were 50 years ago? What have all those conservatives and libertarians done with those billions of dollars that has shown any improvement in the political or the moral climate of the country?

Now, if that money had been put into the preaching of the gospel – the uncompromised, unvarnished, pure gospel, perhaps there would be something completely different to show for it. But it was put into compromised political action, and there’s nothing to show for it. Absolutely nothing. Tens of billions of dollars – when you think of all the campaigns, all the organizations.

And I’ve been involved – my [PhD] degree’s in political theory, political philosophy. I’ve been interested in politics all my life and have been involved from time to time, working on Capitol Hill. And I learned a very good lesson on Capitol Hill – that what happens there is of little consequence. That if one is interested in changing society, you don’t go to Capitol Hill, you preach the gospel.

If anybody is operating under the illusion that political action is going to make a significant change in society apart from a sea change in the beliefs in the American people, then they’re condemned to futility. They will waste their lives.
-John W. Robbins, former Chief of Staff for Ron Paul:

False religion by Phil Johnson

othing is more offensive to God than false religion. The first two of the Ten Commandments underscore that truth. The order of the Commandments is significant. By ruling out false religion before forbidding murder, adultery, or stealing, Moses' Law made clear that that false religion is the vilest of sins.

We have a tendency to regard all religion as inherently noble and honorable. We tend to think that a non-Christian who is devout in his or her religion is somehow morally superior to the wanton sinner who openly traffics in drugs or pornography or some other notorious sin.

But let's be honest: that is not a proper biblical perspective. False religion is gross sin. The person who worships a false god is as abhorrent to the true God as a publican or a prostitute. And the person who worships YHWH in a false or hypocritical way is engaging in wanton sin just as surely as the thief or murderer. Pharisees always think they are morally superior to publicans and sinners, but the ministry of Christ gave ample proof that they are not.

So you can be a religious person and devote your whole life to a broadly inclusive style of gentle piety and altruistic good works in a way that will gain you the respect of all society, but if you worship the wrong god—or even if you worship the true God in a wrong way—you might be worse off, and your life might be even more of an offense to God, than the lowest criminal or most degenerate social outcast. That is the very truth Christ stressed again and again with the Pharisees.

No sinner is more lost than the religious sinner. If you have ever done much personal evangelism, or if you have unbelieving family members who are in bondage to some religious tradition, you know what I am talking about. There is no salvation for the person who thinks his religion can earn him a righteous standing before God. Jesus said in Mark 2:17, "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." False religion lures people into a sense of self-righteousness where they see no need for salvation. That's why it is so wicked.

We need to view false religion from a more biblical perspective. The reality is, of all the gross wickedness that runs rampant in this fallen world, nothing is quite as evil as religion that departs from the truth.

Phil's signature

Mormonism and Biblical Christianity

An FAQ on the Difference between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity

The following is adapted from the section on Mormonism (or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) in the ESV Study Bible article on religious cults. The attempt is to be concise yet still accurate. I’ve added questions in bold to break it up a bit.

What do Mormons believe about apostasy and restoration?
Mormons claim that “total” apostasy overcame the church following apostolic times, and that the Mormon Church (founded in 1830) is the “restored church.”

What’s the problem with this understanding?
If the Mormon Church were truly a “restored church,” one would expect to find first-century historical evidence for Mormon doctrines like the plurality of gods and God the Father having once been a man. Such evidence is completely lacking. Besides, the Bible disallows a total apostasy of the church (e.g., Matt. 16:18; 28:20; Eph. 3:21; 4:11–16), warning instead of partial apostasy (1 Tim. 4:1).

What do Mormons believe about God?
Mormons claim that God the Father was once a man and that he then progressed to godhood (that is, he is a now-exalted, immortal man with a flesh-and-bone body).

What does the Bible teach about the nature of God?
Based on the Bible, God is not and has never been a man (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9). He is a spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Furthermore, God is eternal (Ps. 90:2; 102:27; Isa. 57:15; 1 Tim. 1:17) and immutable (or unchangeable in his being and perfections; see Ps. 102:25–27; Mal. 3:6). He did not “progress” toward godhood, but has always been God.

What do Mormons believe about the Trinity and polytheism?
Mormons believe that the Trinity consists not of three persons in one God but rather of three distinct gods. According to Mormonism, there are potentially many thousands of gods besides these.

What does the Bible teach about the Triune God?
Trusting in or worshiping more than one god is explicitly condemned throughout the Bible (e.g., Ex. 20:3). There is only one true God (Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:18; 46:9; 1 Cor. 8:4; James 2:19), who exists eternally in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14).

What do Mormons believe about human exaltation?
Mormons believe that humans, like God the Father, can go through a process of exaltation to godhood.

What does the Bible teach about humanity?
The Bible teaches that the yearning to be godlike led to the fall of mankind (Gen. 3:4ff.). God does not look kindly on humans who pretend to attain to deity (Acts 12:21–23; contrast Acts 14:11–15). God desires humans to humbly recognize that they are his creatures (Gen. 2:7; 5:2; Ps. 95:6–7; 100:3). The state of the redeemed in eternity will be one of glorious immortality, but they will forever remain God’s creatures, adopted as his children (Rom. 8:14–30; 1 Cor. 15:42–57; Rev. 21:3–7). Believers will never become gods.

What do Mormons believe about Jesus?
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn spirit-child of the heavenly Father and a heavenly Mother. Jesus then progressed to deity in the spirit world. He was later physically conceived in Mary’s womb, as the literal “only begotten” Son of God the Father in the flesh (though many present-day Mormons remain somewhat vague as to how this occurred).

What does the Bible teach about Jesus?

Biblically, the description of Jesus as the “only begotten” refers to his being the Father’s unique, one-of-a-kind Son for all eternity, with the same divine nature as the Father (see note on John 1:14; cf. John 1:18; 3:16, 18; see also John 5:18; 10:30). Moreover, he is eternal deity (John 1:1; 8:58) and is immutable (Heb. 1:10–12; 13:8), meaning he did not progress to deity but has always been God. And Mary’s conception of Jesus in his humanity was through a miracle of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20).

What do Mormons believe about our eternal destiny?
Mormons believe that most people will end up in one of three kingdoms of glory, depending on one’s level of faithfulness. Belief in Christ, or even in God, is not necessary to obtain immortality in one of these three kingdoms, and therefore only the most spiritually perverse will go to hell.

What does the Bible teach about our eternal destiny ?
The Bible teaches that people have just two possibilities for their eternal futures: the saved will enjoy eternal life with God in the new heavens and new earth (Phil. 3:20; Rev. 21:1–4; 22:1–5), while the unsaved will spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:13–15).

What do Mormons believe about sin and atonement?
Mormons believe that Adam’s transgression was a noble act that made it possible for humans to become mortal, a necessary step on the path to exaltation to godhood. They think that Christ’s atonement secures immortality for virtually all people, whether they repent and believe or not.

What does the Bible teach about sin and atonement?
Biblically, there was nothing noble about Adam’s sin, which was not a stepping-stone to godhood but rather brought nothing but sin, misery, and death to mankind (Gen. 3:16–19; Rom. 5:12–14). Jesus atoned for the sins of all who would trust him for salvation (Isa. 53:6; John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

What do Mormons believe about salvation?
Mormons believe that God gives to (virtually) everyone a general salvation to immortal life in one of the heavenly kingdoms, which is how they understand salvation by grace. Belief in Christ is necessary only to obtain passage to the highest, celestial kingdom—for which not only faith but participation in Mormon temple rituals and obedience to its “laws of the gospel” are also prerequisites.

What does the Bible teach about salvation?
Biblically, salvation by grace must be received through faith in Christ (John 3:15–16; 11:25; 12:46; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22–24; Eph. 2:8–9), and all true believers are promised eternal life in God’s presence (Matt. 5:3–8; John 14:1–3; Rev. 21:3–7).

A useful chart........

Brief Comparison between Mormonism and Christianity
More than one god. God the father is an exalted man who was as we are now and has a body of flesh and bones.
There is only one God who is spirit and eternal.
The father, son and holy spirit are three gods separate and distinct from each other.
One God Who exists in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Spirit brother of Lucifer, a literal off-spring of god the father.
Eternal Son of God, second person of the Trinity.
Holy Spirit
A distinct god from father and son, a spirit man and a spirit son of God the Father.
Holy Spirit
The third eternal person of the Trinity.
By presenting our best efforts and obedience to god’s commands and then by grace. Man can become a god.
A free gift from God received by grace alone through faith alone and not by works.

History according to Glenn Beck

“The story of America is the story of humankind. 5,000 years ago, on the other side of the planet, God’s chosen people were led out of bondage by a guy with a stick who was talking to a burning bush. Man first began to recognize God and God’s law. The chosen people began to listen to the LORD. At the same time, those things were happening on this side. On this land. Another group of people were gathered here and they too were listening to God. How these two people were brought together again happened because people were listening to God. They didn’t have the right to worship God the way they saw fit. And so they got down on their knees. They didn’t want to come to this land, they just did because they felt that’s what God was telling them to do. And with malice towards none they got into their boats and they came. God’s chosen people. The Native Americans. And the Pilgrims.”

As he is a Mormon, let us look at what Mormonism teaches about history.

Christians.....Please wake up.
I know it's hard, and I know Beck says a lot of things that we would agree with, but please, let us realise that what he is doing is Anti-Christian to the core.
It may be a case of the "rocks" crying out in a sense, but his god is not the God of the Bible. He uses terminology that sounds Christian, and please keep in mind that the rally video at the top, he spent more time talking about god, theology and the need to return to god than he did about the constitution etc.

What god is he asking America to return to?
What history is he preaching?
Does the Bible agree with Beck and his Mormonism, his false history, his random quoting of scripture and his use of overtly Christian terminology.

And of course professing Christians are not influenced by all of this, right?

Is he pulling the wool over your eyes dear Christian?

More here......

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Do not write off or ignore this guy.

I was reading a post today from Dr James White's site regarding the subject of presuppositionalism, and specifically the post is called a "concise history" of presuppositionalism, and yet Dr Clark gets not a hint of a mention, so I am just trying to give a more balanced and fair approach to the subject by putting Clark's name a well deserved mention in the history of this field of apologetics. I note again that it amazes me that Dr White does not mention this man and yet from everything I know about James White's views upon theology, he would side more with Clark than Van Til, so it leads me to conclude that Dr White has either not read Clark or he has been put off Clark for other reasons.

Clarkian presuppositionalism

Gordon Clark
Gordon Clark and his followers treat the truth of the Scriptures as the axiom of their system. The axiom cannot be proven or disproven; rather, the worldview that results from the axiom may be tested for consistency and comprehensiveness.[24] Testing for internal contradiction exemplifies Clark's strict reliance on the laws of logic (He famously translates the first verse of the Gospel of John as "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.")[25] Thus, in order to invalidate non-Christian worldviews, one must simply show how a different presupposition results in necessary logical contradictions, while showing that presupposing the Bible leads to no logical contradiction. By contrast, some Van Tillians have suggested that God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture reveals apparent paradoxes.[26]
However, Clark allowed that presupposing axioms (or "first principles") themselves do not make a philosophical system true, including his own; the fact that all worldviews he examined other than Christianity had internal contradictions only made Christianity highly more probable as truth, but not necessarily so.[citation needed] Nonetheless, he believed that this method was effective in many practical cases (when arguing against, for instance, secular humanism or dialectical materialism) and that, in the end, each of us must simply choose (that is, make an informed selection) from among seemingly consistent worldviews the one that most adequately answers life's questions and seems the most internally coherent. (Some Van Tillian critics suggest that the concept of coherence itself must be defined in terms of Christian presuppositions but is instead being used by Clark as a "neutral" principle for discerning the truth of any proposition.[citation needed])
Using this approach, Clark labored to expose the contradictions of many worldviews that were in vogue in his day and to defend the Christian worldview by proving its consistency over and against those who attacked it. His unflagging use of logic sometimes led him to what most Reformed theologians consider rather unorthodox ideas on such topics as the problem of evil — topics which are most often treated by theologians as paradoxes or apparent contradictions not resolvable by human logic. But Clark famously rejected the idea that Scripture teaches paradoxes and notion of "apparent contradiction", asking "apparent to whom?". He described an alleged biblical paradox as nothing more than "a charley-horse between the ears that can be eliminated by rational massage."[27]
With regard to other schools of apologetics, Clark suggested that the cosmological argument was not just unpersuasive but also logically invalid (because it begged the question), and he similarly dismissed the other Thomistic arguments.[citation needed] As a staunch critic of all varieties of empiricism, he did not tend to make much use of evidential arguments, which yield likelihoods and probabilities rather than logical certainties (that is, either coherence or incoherence).
Taken from Wikipedia -- Note, if they can get it right to give Clark a mention, I am sure us reformed believers can at least do what Wikipedia has got right regarding the subject of presuppositionalism.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

John 3:16 (Revisited)

I had come accross this post from here, and as I had written a gospel tract upon the subject matter of John 3:16, I thought to share Sprouls comments here.

From Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul, pg 73-75
It is ironic that in the same chapter, indeed in the same context, in which our Lord teaches the utter necessity of rebirth to even see the kingdom, let alone choose it, non-Reformed views find one of their main proof texts to argue that fallen man retains a small island of ability to choose Christ. It is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

What does this famous verse teach about fallen man’s ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing.
The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ. A careful look at the text reveals, however, that it teaches nothing of the kind. What the text teaches is that everyone who believes in Christ will be saved. Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life). The text says nothing, absolutely nothing, about who will ever believe. It says nothing about fallen man’s natural moral ability. Reformed people and non-Reformed people both heartily agree that all who believe will be saved. They heartily disagree about who has the ability to believe.
Some may reply, “All right. The text does not explicitly teach that fallen men have the ability to choose Christ without being reborn first, but it certainly implies that.”

I am not willing to grant that the text even implies such a thing. However, even if it did it would make no difference in the debate. Why not? Our rule of interpreting Scripture is that implications drawn from the Scripture must always be subordinate to the explicit teaching of Scripture. We must never, never, never reverse this to subordinate the explicit teaching of Scripture to possible implications drawn from Scripture. This rule is shared by both Reformed and non-Reformed thinkers.

If John 3:16 implied a universal natural human ability of fallen men to choose Christ, then that implication would be wiped out by Jesus’ explicit teaching to the contrary. We have already shown that Jesus explicitly and unambiguously taught that no man has the ability to come to him without God doing something to give him that ability, namely drawing him.

Fallen man is flesh. In the flesh he can do nothing to please God. Paul declares, “The fleshly mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7, 8).

We ask, then, “Who are those who are ‘in the flesh’?” Paul goes on to declare: “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you” (Rom. 8:9). The crucial word here is "if."
What distinguishes those who are in the flesh from those who are not is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. No one who is not reborn is indwelt by God the Holy Spirit. People who are in the flesh have not been reborn. Unless they are first reborn, born of the Holy Spirit, they cannot be subject to the law of God. They cannot please God.

God commands us to believe in Christ. He is pleased by those who choose Christ. If unregenerate people could choose Christ, then they could be subject to at least one of God’s commands and they could at least do something that is pleasing to God. If that is so, then the apostle has erred here in insisting that those who are in the flesh can neither be subject to God nor please him.

We conclude that fallen man is still free to choose what he desires, but because his desires are only wicked he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ. As long as he remains in the flesh, unregenerate, he will never choose Christ. He cannot choose Christ precisely because he cannot act against his own will. He has no desire for Christ. He cannot choose what he does not desire. His fall is great. It is so great that only the effectual grace of God working in his heart can bring him to faith.