Switching gears

I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving this year, and that for those of you who traveled to have Thanksgiving with family, that you're arriving safely back home.

Anyway, I thought it might be a nice change of pace to switch gears a little bit, so I'm recommending that you visit Craig Winn's Yada Yahweh blogtalkradio program when you get the time. Specifically one or more of his shows in the very intriguing "The Great Galatians Debate" series which are accessible at the site.

Let me know what you think, if you should like, in a comment to this entry.

Read More

Is anything possible with God?

Well, no. Anything that is possible is possible with God, unlike human ... beings. It isn't like God is being that involves no restriction on His being, well, being. God can't possibly create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, as an example. But He can create a rock that is too heavy for created beings to possibly lift, human technology and enginuity notwithstanding. That is the essence of God. He can do certain things, and he cannot do certain other things. We (human beings, created intelligent beings) can relate to this only as a limited being can relate to unlimited being. By calling God "unlimited," while asserting his "limitlessness" am I not contradicting myself? Well, in a sense, yes. In another sense (the God-sense), no. God is unlimited in his ability to do that which is possible to do. Human beings cannot ever achieve that level of possibility no matter what. We'll never be able to create a rock that is impossible for us to lift, in other words, if it were at all possible for us to "create" a rock in any event.

But, in the end, I'm simply inviting others to share their view or understanding of theology. Given that we have some very intelligent, very informed commenters here, I have nothing but intense interest in their particular views on this subject.

The floor is yours...

Read More

On the sorry state of the Christian Church in America

As if the preceding two posts to this blog were not enough, I received a report from the frontlines a few days ago relating to the post title.

Now, I'm not particularly friendly to what some would call "organized religion." I'm a Christian, and I strive to follow Christ's teachings. That would include the Old Testament which Christ, several times in the New Testament, confirmed. On the other hand, I'm not opposed to some level of "organized" religion. There has to be a balance struck, and again, I strive [truly] to strike that balance as an individual, as well as in my relation to others outside my personal individuality.

In the particular case in question, and among other serious errors, it was reported to me, from a very reliable source, that the minister of this church announced to the congregation during his "altar call" during last Sunday's service that "if you want to be released from the bonds of traditionalism, then come forward and pray with me and you shall be set free." Well, okie dokie. That's about the point at which I would have walked out. And indeed, according to my informant, that WAS the point at which he walked out of the service, with no intention of ever returning.

Now, in and of itself it isn't that big of a deal if we establish some reasonable context in which the statement was made. But this isn't the case. This is the kind of church in which overweight females actually pray the calories out of their food (you'd think they'd look in the mirror, or step on a pair of scales once in a while), and such as that. It is the kind of church in which the Spirit of God cannot be in attendance unless virtually everyone is acting like a bunch of teenaged idiots at a rock concert or a local nightclub. And etc. You get the idea I think, but let us seal the deal: This is the kind of church in which the impending economic crisis is thought to be exclusive to the world; the kind of church in which the congregation is assured that as long as it pays its tithes, everything (for faithful tithe-paying members in exclusion of all others) will be hunky-dory. Getting the picture?

You see why I find life so interesting? Here we have a "Christian" church (and this is more common than some of you might think) which teaches doctrines that are not only unscriptural, but which also denies God's very nature and essence. But God is not mocked; He will laugh and will have us in derision. Let me put it this way: if you're a so-called "Christian" church, and your sole and exclusive focus is on the book of Revelation, end-times prophesy, name-it-and-claim-it "gospel," then you're so far from genuine Biblical-Christian teaching that you have no earthly business claiming to be "Christian" in any sense of the word. And this whole problem spans the denominations, believe me:

Several years ago one of the neighbor children came to me while I was busy doing some yard work and announced that she'd been "saved." Now, knowing her like I did, I thought this was kind of odd, so I began to quiz her on what she meant by the term "saved." She said that she was in church and the preacher had an altar call in which he invited all of the non-saved to participate. She, of course, participated. As I 'interrogated' her as to what she'd done, I found that she was completely oblivious to what she'd done. First, she didn't know who Christ was. Second, she had no idea about his birth, death, and resurrection. I gave her a few scriptures to read, and said to her that she should go back to the pastor and explain that she wasn't aware, at the time of her "conversion", what it all meant; that she wanted to be saved legitimately. She did so, and reported back to me (with a bit of an attitude this time) that the pastor in question had informed her that he had saved her before, so there was no need to go over it again ... and that she was to communicate this to me at our next encounter, which she did.

Years prior to that particular incident I was working on a job when the lady of the house announced to me that the weather at the time was the "weirdest weather she'd experienced during the course of her lifetime," and that she could "no longer tell the difference [between the seasons]." This occurance, to her, meant that Christ was soon to return in accordance with Revelation. The season in question was Fall, and I simply said to her that I can tell the difference -- all I have to do is look outside and see the changing as it takes place. And accordingly I asked how much time she spent outside the house. (Does geographic location -- in this case 35 degrees North latitiude, 100 degrees West longitude, approx. 750 ft. above Sea Level, and completely surrounded by land -- mean nothing to any American anymore?).

That, my friends, is the state of Christianity in this country. I've seen and experienced it over and over and over again during the course of the last several years. And it isn't getting any better. It is getting worse, and the stain on Christianity and Biblical-Christian teaching is becoming more and more profound as we speak.

I completely understand where many of you non-Christians are coming from when you say things to the effect that religion is unreasonable. But I want you to know that there are some of us 'religionists' who do not deny our physical beings and our physical natures, nor the physical world in which we live. Indeed, we embrace it as essential aspects of who we are. At the same time we do not deny our spiritual sides either. And we believe, with assurance, that our physical existance is governed by physical laws which are more or less immutable. The same applies as well to our spiritual natures.

Read More

Allow me another anecdote

I ran across Jay Seculow's radio show the other day while driving from one job to another. My interest was piqued because Seculow was talking about the recent release of the report from the Homeland Security Dept., and the UCLJ's actions in response.

When the phone lines were opened a female caller prefaced her concerns with this statement which I'll paraphrase: "I'm sorry, but we've elected a Muslim to the presidency." I don't think the latter part of the statement was actually aired because Seculow intentionally cut her mic in the very midst of her making the statement. Thus, her larger point was not allowed to be made.

Seculow then entered upon a diatribe about how he wasn't going to question Hussein's profession of faith, nor the way in which he chooses to exercise his religion, which, of course, Hussein claims to be Christianity. He didn't come out and say it, of course, but the implication was clear enough -- Jay Seculow is a bought-and-paid-for, holier-than-thou "liberal Christian." You know, one of those Christians who believes in fairness and "tolerance" and non-discrimination as the ultimate goal and ruling principles of any legitimate society. He also, by implication, has a problem with Christianity's exclusivism, as well as with Christians who understand and accept this essential aspect of Christianity. But that doesn't negate the fact that Christianity IS exclusivistic.

Tell ya what, Jay, you go on not questioning Hussein's faith and his exercise of faith (and by extension anyone and everyone else's), while at the same time discriminating against Christian callers bold enough to assert the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. But let me ask you this: what part of Holy writ, and what part of the New Testament and Christ's ministry in particular, do you presume to cite in defense of this "Christian" position of yours? Take your time.

Read More

In Answer to the objections of Atheists...

...to Auster, Coleman, et al.

Here is an excerpt from Washington's Farewell Address apropos to the discussion, and a strong defense of the position of those mentioned:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (emphasis mine)

Indeed! Who that is a sincere friend to our species of free government can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Messers Auster and Coleman, et al, are simply doing what they have to do. And they have the force of a Washington to back them up, whom I invoke.

Read More

Christian leaders withdraw support from Christian-Muslim Accord Document,

But is this enough?

Our friends at CitizenLink are reporting that three faculty members from Wheaton College have withdrawn their support from A Christian Response to 'A Common Word Between Us and You', a document led and produced by scholars at Yale Divinity School undermining basic Christian doctrine for the sake of establishing "common ground" between Christians and Muslims:

The president and two other administrators of prestigious Wheaton College have asked that their names be removed from a controversial statement staking out so-called common ground between Christians and Muslims.

While I applaud the actions taken by the Wheaton administrators in asking that their names be removed from the document, and while I hope their recent actions will lead to further defections among the ranks of Christian leaders who have also prematurely and ignorantly lent their names and their influence to this unorthodox Christian statement, I cannot help but note that their original support for this document and all it entails carried with it, as is always the case, the potential for causing untold damage to the cause of advancing the truth of genuine Christian orthodoxy, as well as lending credibility to the demonstrably false proposition that Islam can ever come to peaceful terms with Christianity short of Christians acting in a submissive role to Muslims and their religion.

It is simply amazing to me that any so-called Christian "leader" could ever lend his name, his authority, and his influence to a document which "leaves open for discussion" the question of Christ's deity, which is, if I may be so bold as to say it, the essential of all essentials of Christian theology.

To my mind, therefore, it is simply not enough that these individuals have asked that their names be removed from this document, but that they themselves write and publish a strong refutation of the non-Christian principles upon which this illegitimate document is established. After all, these individuals are prominent Christian scholars representing a prestigious school of higher learning, so they should have no trouble whatsoever putting their heads together and crafting such a document. Which to me seems the appropriate and next logical step in atoning for their "well-intentioned" mistake.

There is also the little matter of both the Muslim and Christian documents grossly overstating the need for peace between the two communities, and the agreement of the latter with the ominous prediction of the former concerning the future state of the world in the absence of such a "peace",

“Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world.”

We share the sentiment of the Muslim signatories expressed in these opening lines of their open letter. Peaceful relations between Muslims and Christians stand as one of the central challenges of this century, and perhaps of the whole present epoch. Though tensions, conflicts, and even wars in which Christians and Muslims stand against each other are not primarily religious in character, they possess an undeniable religious dimension. If we can achieve religious peace between these two religious communities, peace in the world will clearly be easier to attain. It is therefore no exaggeration to say, as you have in A Common Word Between Us and You, that “the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.”

neither of which acknowledges that the main obstacle which has ever and continues to stand in the way of such peace and justice between these opposing religions is the centrality of jihad to the religion of Islam. But I beg to differ with the "Christian" writers here; Not only is this a gross exaggeration of the actuality of the situation, but as John Quincy Adams rightly noted, so long as there are people in the world who subscribe to the clear teachings of the Koran to make perpetual war on the infidels by whatever means necessity dictates, then there can never be peace and good will toward men. In other words, a genuine peace between Muslims and Christians being impossible, not a "daunting task", but impossible, the establishment of peace between the two communities is not and should not be the goal. The goal should rather be separation of the Western world from the Islamic world wherein we no longer provide avenues by which Muslims become more and more empowered to harm us, which negotiations of peace between us and them can only achieve at length. And this goal of separation, quite literally, must be achieved by Westerners resistant to all impulses to establishing "peaceful" relations between us and them. This is the true daunting task before us, not impossible, but daunting.

The only guarantee of peace between Christians and Muslims is that there is no guarantee of peace between Christians and Muslims. Indeed, quite to the contrary.

Read More

Select VFR Articles; it's there for your perusal

When my son and I returned home from the football game last night (our team lost 6-3), we got on the computer and went to Webster's. Something was mentioned by one of us about the quality of the commenters over at VFR. At which point I recalled probably the most outstanding VFR comment I've ever had the good fortune to read...

That's right, I'm speaking of Kristor L's Christian apologetic which I personally cannot get enough of, and which I put up a permanent link to some weeks ago under Select VFR Articles in the left sidebar.

Indeed, as my wife, my son and I were discussing this topic, I said to them, "ya want to see a prime example of the quality of the comments over at VFR?, let me read this to you," and I began reading aloud Kristor's statements. Though they (my wife and son) seemed somewhat uninterested at first, I didn't get much further than the first couple of sentences before I knew I had their full and undivided attention, and I kept it throughout the entire reading, er, rather, Kristor kept it throughout, all I did was read.

Now, I'm not sure that I can nail down a single statement in the post, or even a couple of them as my favorites. The entire article is so good and so powerful that it is best read and studied as a whole before you break it down to its elements. But one portion which struck me as I was reading last night, and which I put a lot of emphasis on (and by the way, Kristor's skill in writing comes through as the sentences leading up to a particular point lend themselves very well to emphasizing the point in a climactic sort of fashion) during my audible reading was this paragraph:

Kristor writes:

That I am Christian makes me, not more like some other Christian--Lawrence, say, or St. Francis or Mother Teresa--but more like my own better self. At the same time, the more Christian I become, the more I will express Christian virtues, as Lawrence, Francis, and Teresa also all variously do. So with cultures. The effect upon any culture of conversion to Christianity should be, not its destruction, but that it should begin to learn how best to express its truest, best essence. If Christianity is the religion of Truth, then conversion thereto should make Greece a better, truer Greece, Russia a better, truer Russia, China a better, truer China. The reaction of any culture to Christianity should be to evoke and appropriate to itself from the whole body of universal catholic Truth those aspects thereof most pertinent to its parochial predicaments. The whole Truth is necessarily adequate to any creaturely situation. Any creature orienting itself properly in respect to the Truth cannot but find itself ennobled and more perfectly individuated thereby. And to the degree that any culture is truly converted, this beneficial effect should permeate it, down to its most trivial mundane details. Ceteris paribus, any Christian nation should find that it becomes ever happier, healthier, more prosperous--not because it is seeking these values, but precisely because it has, properly, sought first the values to be found in the Living God, of which all other values are derivates. When the landlord's values come first, the vineyard prospers, and likewise the laborers. This, even though they may suffer tortures and die martyrs.

This is just one of the several outstanding paragraphs of Kristor's apologetic writing. It is indeed that I've pointed out myself many times (though not nearly as eloquently as Kristor), when someone points to the goodness of America for instance, that yes, America can be said to be "good" and even the "best nation on earth" if the standard by which we measure her goodness is the "inferior goodness" other nations. But as Kristor so rightly notes, our nation's "goodness" is not to be measured by the "badness of," or relative to other nations. If that's the standard of measure, then all we can accomplish is to fool ourselves into believing that America, as she is now, is the ultimate in national goodness. Rather, our standard of measure for America's goodness should be America's better self. And when we hold ourselves up against that standard, our relative lack of goodness is immediately revealed to the honest observer. Furthermore, God, being the essence of goodness, it is his goodness that we should seek to emulate, as individuals as well as in our collective capacity.

End of initial post.

Read More