False teacher follies, Easter-style

Easter eggs?  Check.  Gay pride flag?  Check.  Not one mention of sin?  Check.  Anti-biblical statements on why Jesus was killed?  Check.  Anti-biblical statements on the resurrection?  Check.  Explicit denial of the atonement?  Check.  It must be an Easter sermon by false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie:

Theologians and lay people debate to this day whether or not Jesus was physically raised or whether the disciples (and later Paul) interacted with the spirit of Christ. Like Marcus Borg and others, I think that debate asks the wrong questions. It doesn’t matter. What matters is in ways that may very well surpass human understanding Jesus revealed himself after the cross with the ones he taught and loved, and that his spirit still moves many today in wondrous ways.

Yes, people debate it.  Christians are on one side (physical resurrection) and everyone else is on the other, including Chuck.  Marcus Borg is a notoriously bad thinker.

Of course it matters.  Ironically enough, my authentic, Bible-believing pastor preached on 1 Corinthians 15 today, which couldn’t be more clear: If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, we’re wrong.

But He did rise again!  Here are some minimal facts attesting to that.

His “sermon” acted as if we just can’t be sure why Jesus died.

Jesus did not go to the cross as part of some vengeful God’s need for a sacrifice. He went to the cross because the Roman authorities saw the Kingdom of God as a threat to the Empire of Rome. Crucifixion was a crime reserved for enemies of the state.  Jesus went knowing what his fate would be but believing there are ideas and principles worth dying for.

Note how Chuck teaches the opposite of the Bible in literally every sentence.  He doesn’t have a single verse to back any of that up.

Run, don’t walk, from fakes like Currie who steer people to Hell.

Hear the good news: Jesus came to die for lost sinners.  Repent and trust in him, then God will adopt you, forgive all your sins and bring you to be with him for eternity.

A really, really easy way to spot false teachers

If they say Jesus was wrong about anything then you know you have a wolf.  Via Pastor: Jesus Was Wrong About Marriage.

This exchange in particular was the most glaringly infuriating as White, a proponent of same-sex marriage who angered his own congregation recently because of his adamant belief that Christianity supports such a practice, went so far as to agree that Jesus Christ was wrong about His position on marriage being defined as one man and one woman, and if Jesus were alive today he would, in fact, support gay marriage.

It is very common for the fakes to sit in judgment of God, but rarely do they take off the sheepskin so completely and say it outright.  In a weird way I appreciate people who are so transparently fake.

The other good thing is that he conceded that what the Bible really says!  Even non-Christians and two out of the three types of pro-gay theologians* can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

* 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

Jim Wallis is just like a typical politician

Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis  and his Sojourners organization are indistinguishable from the parade of Democrats and left-leaning Republicans who have switched to support oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” the instant that it benefited them publicly.  See On Gay Marriage, Supreme Court Ponders Not ‘If’ But ‘How’ – Lauren Markoe | God’s Politics Blog | Sojourners.

That means they don’t operate by biblical principles, they just follow whatever makes them popular with the world.  Shocking, eh?

1 John 2:15–16 (ESV) 15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

Roundup

What to do when you betray Jesus

Judas and Peter show us there are four options:

  • Like the religious leaders, you can focus all your energies on the things you don’t like about other people. Instead of dealing with their own issues, they obsessed over getting Jesus.

  • You can try to make up for your mistakes, like Judas giving back the money he had received. The problem is, of course, that you can’t un-ring a bell, and you can’t undo your sins.

  • You can give in to despair, stew in your guilt, and let it eat you alive, as Judas did.

  • Or you can repent, as Peter did. You can bring your sin before God for mercy and put things in place that will help you change the way you live.

It is morbidly ironic that nearly all the people posting the red equal signs for the faux “equality” of “same-sex marriage” are pro-abortion.  They fight aggressively to turn society upside down for 0.1% of the country (3% of people are lesbian/gay but less than 3% of those want to get married), but they ignore the equal protection for unborn and unwanted human beings.

‘Gay Marriage’ and Religious Freedom Are Not Compatible — please read it all.

As long as there are still Christians who actually follow Christ and uphold his word, a vast amount of people around the world — never mind Islam — will never ever see gay marriage as anything other than a legal encroachment of God’s intent.

So those Christians must be silenced. The left exerted a great deal of energy to convince everyone that the gay lifestyle is an alternative form of normal. It then has exerted a great deal of energy convincing people that because the gay lifestyle is just another variation of normal, gay marriage must be normalized.

Meanwhile, those Christians are out there saying it is not normal and are refusing to accept it as normal because of silly God dared to say marriage is a union between a man and woman.

Any Christian who refuses to recognize that man wants to upend God’s order will have to be driven from the national conversation. They will be labeled bigots and ultimately criminals.

Already we have seen florists, bakers, and photographers suffer because they have refused to go along with the cultural shift toward gay marriage. There will be more.

Once the world decides that real marriage is something other than natural or Godly, those who would point it out must be silenced and, if not, punished. The state must be used to do this. Consequently, the libertarian pipe dream of getting government out of marriage can never ever be possible.

Within a year or two we will see Christian schools attacked for refusing to admit students whose parents are gay. We will see churches suffer the loss of their tax exempt status for refusing to hold gay weddings. We will see private businesses shut down because they refuse to treat as legitimate that which perverts God’s own established plan. In some places this is already happening.

Christians should, starting yesterday, work on a new front. While we should not stop the fight to preserve marriage, and we may be willing to compromise on civil unions, we must start fighting now for protections for religious objectors to gay marriage.

Richard Dawkins defends the moral goodness of infanticide and adultery — what charming and inconsistent sentiments from the “you can be good without God” leader.

ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR and PBS Ignore Gosnell’s Abortion Horrors — This “doctor” severed the spinal cords of babies born alive, among other horrors, yet the media ignores it.  If you only watch the mainstream media you are hopelessly misinformed.

People who grew up in Nazi Germany or under Communism know the score — Keep Your Guns; Buy More Guns

Kitty Werthmann, who lived under both Nazism and Soviet communism, offers excellent advice regarding firearms (see video at link)

Registration is the first step in confiscation. After what happened in Europe last century, we won’t be able to say we didn’t know how it would play out.

Jim Carrey had a very un-funny bit about gun control.  I’d be shocked if he wasn’t pro-abortion like every other pro-gun control Liberal.

‘Cold Dead Hand’ is abt u heartless moXXerf%XXkers unwilling 2 bend 4 the safety of our kids.Sorry if you’re offended

Yeah, because pro-aborts are all about safety for kids.

Hate speech from the CDC — CDC: risk of HIV 150 times greater for gay men than for heterosexual men.   I wonder how long it will be until they stop publishing those statistics?  Seems to me the loving thing would be to warn against such behaviors.  As Ann Coulter asks, if smokers pay higher insurance premiums then why not gays?

Are the Polyamorists Next in Line for Marriage Equality?  The LGBTQ people know not to move too fast.  They could care less about the polyamorists but realize that the “slippery slope” isn’t a fallacy in this case.  It is a cliff, not a slope.  Validating “same-sex unions” isn’t tweaking the definition of marriage, it is saying that marriage is whatever someone wants to call it.  The polyamorists and other perverts will use the same arguments that the gay lobby has.

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post last week about some polyamory activists in the Unitarian-Universalist Church.  It seems the folks fighting for so-called “marriage equality” would prefer the polyamorists keep quiet.  The last thing the same-sex marriage advocate want is for the real marriage activists to say, “I told you so.”  The article cites a group called Unitarian-Universalist for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA).  This group defines polyamory as the “practice of loving and relating intimately with more than one other person at a time.”  Among the goals of the UUPA is to have their relationships blessed by a minister.

As Stan reminds us, the Hippocratic Oath was written 500 years before Jesus came to earth yet it strongly and clearly opposed abortion.  Abortion is so clearly wrong that it took Satan 2,500 years to convince non-believers that it was, in a morbid irony, a “human right,”  and only a few years more than that to convince much of the church.  The fake part.

Also consider that at late as 1964 even Planned Parenthood was publicly anti-abortion:

Is it [birth control] an abortion?

Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.

There you have it! Straight from the experts at Planned Parenthood.

This picture makes a good point, but it is actually much worse than this.  Gun training programs are truthful in sharing the real risks.  Planned Parenthood deliberately gives a false sense of security and pretends that people will follow their ridiculous recommendations.

Is this Planned Parenthood representative extra-evil, or just remarkably consistent?

Planned Parenthood kills babies for a living, they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, they encourage kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretend that it can be done without risks, and so much more.  Yet one of their representatives managed to shock people during a public hearing. Watch it yourself:

She and Planned Parenthood, like Barack Obama before her, are fighting the restrictions against withholding medical care and killing infants who survive abortions.  She specifically says that the decision regarding what to do about the baby on the table is between the mother and the “healthcare provider.”  (She initially said the family, then thought better of those implications and reverted to just the mother later in her testimony).  And while this question may not have been asked, presumably she would insist that taxpayers fund the killing of the baby on the table.

Apparently the horrors of being a little too far away from a hospital were too much for Planned Parenthood to take, so speaking like Dr. Nick Riviera of The Simpsons, just to be on the safe side they need to be allowed to kill the baby.

Of course it is spectacularly evil to withhold care or directly kill a baby on a table.  Just because the abortionist failed on the first try doesn’t mean he deserves a second shot.  Anyone without a warped moral compass would agree.  But who are the inconsistent ones?  I submit that she is entirely consistent with the Democrats’ platform of abortions without restrictions, funded by taxpayers.

Remember, the successful abortion would have had the mother and child in the same room, with an irrelevant change in the distance between them.  Everyone in the video seems to concede that.  This Planned Parenthood representative would have been entirely consistent in saying the following (channeling Hillary Clinton):

With all due respect, the fact is we end up with a dead baby who wasn’t wanted by her mother. Was it because she was killed slightly inside the mother or slightly outside? What difference at this point does it make?

And she would be right.  While killing the baby on the table seems worse, it is morally equal to the abortion.  (Speaking of red equal signs . . .)

And if those babies can be killed, why not any baby delivered naturally?

On boycotts . . .

I love the free market and our ability to choose where to shop.  If we get bad service or don’t like the worldview of the seller, we don’t have to give them any money.  Or we can steer our spending to companies with great service and similar beliefs.

I’m not aggressively into boycotts, but when companies are in your face with their dogma and I can conveniently go somewhere else, I will.  But I have to concede that even though the pro-“same-sex marriage” people are hopelessly on the wrong side of the issue, part of their point here is valid:

It should be no surprise that many companies would succumb to political correctness for profit, just as many people will say the opposite of the truth to be more popular. I used to work for HP and they gave into to the “gaystapo” lobby and their boycott threats along with the pressures of some LGBT people in the company.

But you really will need to live in a cave if you think you can survive by only shopping where people completely agree with your worldview.  Feel free to go where you like, but most of the time you’ll just be going where someone hates your worldview and you just don’t know it (yet).

Obviously, their “wrong side of history” bit is wrong, especially considering that 99% of people with that view are also pro-abortion.

I just choose to remind people that if you are going to use an equal sign, then the things on each side need to actually be equal. In this case, they are not. The notion of “marriage equality” it is false because it implies that any union of two people is equal to real marriage. Or that the number of people in the marriage isn’t important.

But there are two very important things that same-sex unions can’t do.

1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman. That doesn’t mean marriages have to produce children, just that they are only produced by one male and one female, and that the government is interested in those relationships because of that possibility.

2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.

Those are the reasons the government has traditionally been involved in marriages.  No one is preventing gays from associating with each other (the government won’t even shut down bath houses!).

The Sola Sisters make some good points as well in To Starbucks or Not to Starbucks, That Is The Question.

And yet, at the risk of inflaming many of my Christian friends who often exercise their American right to choose to boycott a company that makes this or that anti-Christian statement, here is just some food for thought:

Should we as Christians expect lost people to act in any other way than lost people generally do?

That is to say, should we expect lost people to not have animosity toward Christians? Can we look at history, perhaps, to help us get our bearings on this? The fact is that the world in which the very first Christians found themselves was a world that was incredibly hostile to biblical Christianity, and filled with wickedness and depravity, including rampant homosexuality. And yet, I feel certain that the Christians of that time interacted in the business world. And I do not see Scriptures exhorting Christians to not buy from this or that leather craftsman or olive purveyor, based on that person’s presumably anti-Christian views.

And also, lest we forget, the Bible makes it clear that the world will have animosity toward both us and God’s Word:

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing….” (1 Corinthians 1:18a)

“You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22)

Prison ministry and a big hug from a Hampton Inn employee . . .

I was getting breakfast recently at the Hampton Inn (Mmmmmm . . . waffles) and heard an employee in the kitchen singing Power in the Blood ( “. . . in the precious blood of the lamb . . .”).  I leaned in to tell her that I liked that song and we shared a smile.  Then without thinking I leaned back in and mentioned that we had just been singing it at a prison ministry weekend.

Her co-worker walked out with me and thanked me for the ministry.  I didn’t think much of it  at first, but she repeated it and then leaned in with tears in her eyes and said that her son was locked up and how she really appreciated people going to minister in prisons.  We talked for a minute then she gave me a giant hug.  Please pray for Valerie and her son and that God will send people to him with the truth and love of Jesus.

It reminded me of how effective and important well-run prison ministry programs can be.

Thanks and blessings to all the people who have established and are running these programs!

—–

Also see Kairos Prison Ministry.  I’ve leading a weekend program this October, so if you are in Houston area and would like to participate on the inside or outside team, or just come to see the closing program to hear how the weekend helped the offenders, please let me know!

“Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels”

Update: This is no longer free, but still a great read!

Go to Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels to get a free Kindle version.  Even if you don’t have a Kindle you can read it on your PC or tablet.  Whether you are a skeptic or a believer you should study this topic.

Go now!  I’ll wait here.

Written by an L. A. County homicide detective and former atheist, Cold-Case Christianity examines the claims of the New Testament using the skills and strategies of a hard-to-convince criminal investigator.

Christianity could be defined as a “cold case”: it makes a claim about an event from the distant past for which there is little forensic evidence. In Cold-Case Christianity, J. Warner Wallace uses his nationally recognized skills as a homicide detective to look at the evidence and eyewitnesses behind Christian beliefs. Including gripping stories from his career and the visual techniques he developed in the courtroom, Wallace uses illustration to examine the powerful evidence that validates the claims of Christianity.

A unique apologetic that speaks to readers’ intense interest in detective stories, Cold-Case Christianity inspires readers to have confidence in Christ as it prepares them to articulate the case for Christianity.

The book was even better than I expected it would be.  I figured it would be a good refresher on some basic apologetics, but he offered a lot fresh angles and was very interesting to read.

A few highlights  . . .

He noticed how John’s Gospel never refers to Jesus’ mother by name, and then points out how that would be logical given that Jesus asked John to take her as his mother.  He wrote the Gospel a few decades later, so it might have been odd for him to call her by her first name.

The differences between the Gospel writers made so much sense when the texts were analyzed forensically.   For example:

Mark used specific titles to describe Peter, gave him priority in the narrative, uniquely included information related to Peter, and copied Peter’s preaching outline when structuring his own gospel. These circumstantial facts support the claims of the early church fathers who identified Peter as the source of Mark’s information. By hanging on every word, we were able to construct a reasonable circumstantial case for the gospel of Mark as an eyewitness account. When combined with the testimony of the early church, this evidence becomes even more powerful.

He does a great job of annihilating the conspiracy theory angle of skeptics.

Don’t get me wrong, successful conspiracies occur every day. But they typically involve a small number of incredibly close-knit participants who are in constant contact with one another for a very short period of time without any outside pressure. That wasn’t the case for the disciples. These men and women either were involved in the greatest conspiracy of all time or were simply eyewitnesses who were telling the truth. The more I learned about conspiracies, the more the latter seemed to be the most reasonable conclusion.

As a VP of Internal Audit, one of the roles of my team is to investigate thefts and other issues, so I found the interrogation and evidence-gathering parts to be fascinating.

Guns vs. abortions

This post about Purchasing A Gun vs. Purchasing An Abortion made some excellent points about the many inconsistencies in how the Left approaches the Constitution, regulations and life issues.  Hat tip: My favorite blogger

Let’s take a look at the differences and similarities between purchasing a gun and purchasing an abortion.

Both guns and abortions are goods or services which are produced and purchased on the free market.

When a gun is purchased, there’s a 99%  chance that gun will never result in the death of a single individual. When an abortion is purchased, there is a 99% chance the abortion will result in the death of an individual.

My tax dollars aren’t used to purchase a gun for someone who can’t afford it. My tax dollars are used to purchase an abortion for a woman or a girl who can’t afford it.

You can legally use a gun to kill an attacker in self-defense, if your life is threatened. You can legally use an abortion to kill a baby for any reason, including the mother’s life being threatened by the baby.

You can get suspended from school for drawing a picture of a gun. Read here. You can get the morning after abortion pill from the school nurse.

There is a background check and a waiting period in order to purchase a gun. There is no waiting period or back ground check to purchase an abortion. For a girl under 18 there are 6 states that require at least one parents permission 24 to 48 hours before the abortion.

. . .

On the one hand the left worked to create and expand a nonexistent right, which forced their morality concerning abortion on the states and the people, and on the other hand, they want to restrict and take away a clearly stated right concerning fire arms, which would also force their morality on the states and the people.

I guess the lesson to be learned is, the left wants to force their morality on us through government coercion, rather than trying to persuade people to accept their morally superior ideas as gospel.

I encourage you to read the entire post to pick up the points about the Constitution..

Uh, thanks but no thanks

In an obvious sp*m email to random bloggers, a man named Joseph invited me to link to a list of the top 100 “marriage equality” blogs on his gay dating site.  Here is my response.  It also goes out to the people on Facebook with the red equal sign pictures and anyone else who abuses words like equality.  Remember, the warnings in Romans 1 aren’t just for those who commit the sins listed there, but for those that give approval to those who practice them.

And remember to point out that even if their lobby wasn’t wrong on both “marriage equality” and adoption by homosexuals, they can’t put forth both arguments.  If gender is absolutely paramount for sexual relationships, how can it be completely irrelevant for parenting?

And here’s a list of things to mention to people who insist that “same-sex marriage” won’t hurt you.

—–

Joseph,

I’ll be glad to link to your site if you’ll make my blog (www.4simpsons.wordpress.com) one of your top 100 blogs. But I don’t think you’ll want to do that, because I respectfully disagree with your premise.

I know many gays and lesbians and am friendly and kind to them all. I would never condone harm to LGBTQ people. I am against bullying of all kinds. And if you have issues such as hospital visitation or estate planning I would support separate solutions for those (i.e., you should be able to have anyone you like visit you in the hospital, and estate taxes are ghoulish — the government should never profit from your death).

Having said all that, “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron (“the same-sex union of a man and a woman”).

That isn’t unkind or hateful to say, it is the truth. Words mean things. The notion of “marriage equality” it is false because it implies that any union of two people is equal to real marriage. Or that the number of people in the marriage isn’t important.

But there are two very important things that same-sex unions can’t do.

1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman.

2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.

Those are the reasons the government has traditionally been involved in marriages.

I realize the underlying desire of LGBTQ to feel affirmed and to silence any criticism of their lifestyles, but that is not a mature reaction.

Again, you are welcome to your relationships. You can get “married” in all sorts of false-teaching, anti-biblical “churches.” You can set up house together. I will never bother to get in the way of your lives.

But there is simply no reason for the government to get involved in your relationships. And government recognition of same-sex unions inevitably — and by design — leads to a loss of free speech and religious freedom and results in young children being taught things that are wrong.

You probably noted that the response above was free of religious views, which was by design. We don’t need religious arguments to explain why the government need not sanction same-sex unions. But out of kindness I should point out that there is a God who clearly and thoroughly revealed himself in the Bible. He is sovereign over all. He designed marriage and the ideal is one man and one woman, for life. Yes, heterosexuals break those rules too, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon all the rules. Everyone has rebelled against God and his created order but they can be forgiven if they repent and trust in Jesus. I highly encourage you to consider that. You don’t want to spend an eternity in Hell regretting that you spent this life in active rebellion against your creator. There is a better way.

Roundup

I’ve been getting lots of traffic on this older post: Wendy Wright schools Richard Dawkins.  For some reason it was mentioned on a Facebook page (but I can’t tell from where) and  fallacious comments poured in from Darwin fans.  Feel free to read the post and the recent comments and feel sad (about the education/mainstream media/entertainment brainwashing that led to this) or glad (about how well the Christian worldview stacks up against those false views and how Dawkins is a self-parody).  It is leading to quite a few views of the minimal facts approach to apologetics, so that is good!

Good things to remember if you are going on mission trips.  If you don’t have an effective plan you are wasting time and money, and may be doing things that are counterproductive to the Kingdom.   I actually had to persuade people at my former church that we should prepare people to share the Gospel as part of the training for missions (of course, they should do that anyway, even if they don’t go on mission trips).  It was predictable that they judged the speaker for judging.

This should be good: “Darwin’s Doubt” — Game-Changing New Book by Stephen Meyer To Be Released in June — That oughta get the Darwin fans excited – in a bad way.

The book’s official website is now live. Go there to pre-order your copy now — do so by April 30th, and receive 43% off and receive four bonus digital books. As someone who has read the book, I can assure you: This is a book not to be missed. If you thought Signature in the Cell was ground-breaking, wait till you get a hold of this.

There is a special term for Republicans who endorse government recognition of “same-sex marriage” — Democrats  (RINO just isn’t strong enough)

The 12 worst party schools in the country — consider going to one of these!

From the Moral Schizophrenia category: Puppies aborted, pro-choicer laments

I’m Sure Glad Our Government Is Not Making Withdrawals From OUR Bank Accounts (Evil Laugh) — Excellent point about how our government is robbing us just as the government of Cyprus tried to rob investors there.  The only difference is that our government is more subtle, using inflationary money printing to do the job — and the media and politicians let them get away with it.

Teacher booted from Portland School District after protracted battle with Planned Parenthood — a great teacher was hounded then fired for daring to disagree with the moral freaks at  Planned Parenthood who kill babies for a living, hide statutory rape and poison and so much more.

Speaking of PP, here’s an update to my summary post on them. They aggressively promote filth to youth.  Watch the videos if you have the stomach for them, and remember that they are marketed to children with your tax dollars.  They assume that every relationship will involve sex and that you will go from one sex relationship to another.  They pretend that people will actually follow their advice (Yeah, sure, people will always use condoms for oral sex.  Because kids and gays would never rebel and break any safe sex rules!).

Great article about the false argument that kids must be in public schools to be properly socialized.

“Preparing” your child for such a world is a euphemism for condemning him to life as a citizen of progressive hell. If mankind is to have a rational, moral future, that future will ultimately belong not to the damaged survivors of public school, but to the “unprepared” and “maladjusted,” namely the bug-studiers, stargazers, and bookworms: those whose intellects and character were permitted to develop naturally, with curiosity, not fear, as their impetus, and self-sufficient adulthood, not “socialization,” as their goal.

Something has gone terribly wrong with the modern world, and public education is at the heart of the problem. The solution will not and cannot come from a publicly educated population. Begin the process of liberating children’s souls now, so that in the future there will once again be Thomas Jeffersons and Benjamin Franklins to do what will need to be done.

How to change the world – Pro-aborts hate when pictures or videos of abortions are shown, and for good reason: They change hearts and minds.

Great summary of the problems with the History Channel Bible movie. Hat tip: Glenn

Capitalism has its rough edges, but it is far, far better than any other -ism ever considered.  Free markets, the rule of law and private property ownership (all supported by both the Old and New Testaments) do more to reduce poverty than any counterproductive program ever dreamed up by the Left.

The “social gospel” vs. the real Gospel

False teachers must not read the Bible, or they are so jaded that they pretend that they can be Leopard Theologians and just pick the spots they like.  Those who preach a “social gospel” should know that by definition they are now accursed:

Galatians 1:8–10 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

That seems pretty clear.  Preaching a gospel of one’s choosing isn’t just a little different, it is the opposite and a profoundly bad thing.  People like Jim Wallis who say that “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” are mocking this passage.

Yes, the real Gospel will lead to all sorts of good deeds.  But the good deeds aren’t the Gospel.  If you tell people that they must be good to be saved, that’s the bad news, not the good news, because we will always fail.  Without Christ, our good deeds are like polluted garments to God (Isaiah 64:6).

The real Gospel is Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead.  If we focus on sharing that, then transformed lives and cultures will follow and you’ll get all sorts of authentically good deeds.

1 Corinthians 15:1–11 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

So if you really want to improve the world, share the real Gospel.

Why all the fuss about that predestination thing?

The negative characterizations that Arminians and Molinists make about the “Calvinist God” are virtually indistinguishable from the nature of their version of God.  They just don’t realize it.  The Arminian version of God either couldn’t or wouldn’t intervene to persuade people to believe.  If they think God couldn’t intervene (send missionaries, etc. ) then that’s a bold statement.  If they say He wouldn’t intervene, how is that different than the alleged liabilities of Reformed theology?

The purpose of this post isn’t to debate Arminian vs. Reformed vs. Middle Knowledge (or whatever hybrid / other version of orthodox Christianity you adhere to).  It is merely to point out that some of the rancor against Reformed theology* in the debate seems misplaced.

The Bible uses the word predestined many times (e.g., Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will), so the only question is what the word really means, in context.  But regardless of your definition, unless you subscribe to the false theology of Open Theism then it seems that you would agree that these two events happened in this order:

  1. God knew who would repent and trust in Jesus and thus spend eternity in Heaven, and who would not and therefore spend eternity in Hell.
  2. God created everyone.

My point is simply that the other views aren’t as far from Reformed theology as their adherents like to think they are (“That old meanie Calvinist God who knew which people would go to Hell but created them anyway is nothing like our loving Arminian/Middle Knowledge God who knew which people would go to Hell and created them anyway!!!”).

For example, on the Molinism/Middle Knowledge view, God considered the infinite number of possibilities of “free will” choices and created the version of the universe that maximized the number of people who would be saved.  But that means one of the following must be true, neither of which is far from Reformed theology.

1. God created someone who wouldn’t convert in any one of an infinite number of universes — even if they read nothing but the Wintery Knight blog, watched nothing but William Lane Craig debates and experienced nothing but Bible-based, loving Christians.  That seems indistinguishable from Reformed theology on that point. They would have been created such that it would be impossible for them to believe under any circumstances.

2. God created people who would have believed in some other universes, but not this one.  God just didn’t give them the right circumstances.  That should strike the same chord of alleged unfairness that people hold against Reformed theology.  They would have believed if only God would have done things differently!

And under the Arminian view, using all their preferred definitions of key terms, God knew which people would not use their “free will” to choose him but created them anyway.  Which means one of the following:

1. No matter what God did, they wouldn’t choose him.  God created them knowing that no matter how events were ordered, they would not use their “free will” to believe, sort of like the previous possibility #1.  This seems barely distinguishable from the Reformed view.

2. They would have chosen God had He made their circumstances different.  God could have ordered events differently so that they would have been more compelled to choose.  But He chose not to . . .

Again, I’m not after the merits of the views in this post.  I know which one is correct ;-).  I’m just pointing out that they aren’t as far apart as people make them out to be on the emotional issues.  Even if you are correct on this in-house debate and Reformed theology is in error, the emotional reactions to Reformed theology on this point are not warranted.  In Reformed, Arminian and Molinist theologies God knew what people would do, including that many would spend eternity in Hell, then He created them anyway.

P.S. I had to shut down comments on the last post with a similar topic because otherwise-well behaved people were getting petty.  Don’t make me do that again! 

* Sometimes referred to as Calvinism.  I realize that some don’t care for the term “Reformed,” but I need to choose some descriptor.

Roundup

Ancient Myths vs. the Bible – Does the Bible mirror the myths of other religions?  Not at all.  It is radically different at every turn.  See the link for more.

  • Cyclical time: there is a lack of definite beginning and no clear direction to reality (with no one to give it direction). The Bible speaks of history with a beginning, with progress, and with a destination.
  • Nature symbolizing the divine. The Bible specifically rejects this.
  • The significance of magic, specifically the use of ritual and/or manipulations of matter to cause predictable results in the realm of deity. This, too, is nowhere to be found in biblical religion.
  • Obsession with fertility and potency, often expressed in religious (temple-based, even) prostitution of every base description. God is not sexual, nor is the religion he revealed.
  • Polytheism: obviously not the case for biblical theism.
  • The use of images in worship: expressly forbidden in the Ten Commandments.
  • Eternity of chaotic matter: see above; not so in the Bible.
  • Low view of the gods, who are more powerful than humans but no better ethically; the Bible depicts God as perfectly holy, just, loving, and righteous.

Bill Maher: Job creator – Mugged by reality.

While discussing the latest budget proposal by Republican Representative Paul Ryan with his guests, Maher said on his show last Friday night of taxes, that rich people “actually do pay the freight in this country”:

“I just saw these statistics,” (Maher) continued, “I mean, something like 70 percent. And here in California, I just want to say liberals – you could actually lose me. It’s outrageous what we’re paying – over 50 percent. I’m willing to pay my share, but yeah, it’s ridiculous.”

For a – gasp – liberal to rail against taxes – the very backbone of the coercive government that particular crowd typically trumpets, well that’s a feeding frenzy invite to both ends of the political spectrum. What’s really noteworthy is that no matter if it was flagged as sacrilege or hoisted as truth to power, the media, bloggers, pundits and others all latched onto Maher’s phrase, “Liberals – you could actually lose me”.

Where’s Luca Brasi when you need him? – Ann Coulter points out how Republicans could win much more easily if they stuck to their principles, made a few less stupid (and easily preventable mistakes) and didn’t re-run so many losing (and loser – i.e., Sanford) candidates.

Senate Republicans Willfully and Knowingly Lie to Their Constituents – They should be replaced for not opposing the funding of Obamacare, and especially for lying about it. 

Quick, Cut to a Commercial!

Look how quickly liberal establishment mouthpiece Bob Schieffer cuts to a commercial when fellow moonbats Sally Quinn and Carl Bernstein let the cat out of the bag regarding the extent to which homosexuals have infiltrated the Catholic Church . . .

Oops. We wouldn’t want any any of the little people out there in TV Land to put two and two together regarding the pedophile priest problem.

It is always amusing seeing these types pretending to care about the relevancy of the Catholic organization.

Epic Pro-2nd Amendment Testimony In Connecticut – I wish more people spoke out like this and that the media covered it more.

“I can’t for the life of me understand how this state can have as many gun laws on the books as it does and have members of its Legislature need to take firearms 101. And as far as what I felt were potshots taken at the NRA, they’ve done more for gun safety– they’ll do more for gun safety this weekend than this committee will do in your careers.”

Prior to Sandy Hook, Connecticut had some of the most draconian, restrictive gun laws in the nation.

“Adam Lanza commits a crime, and I’m here to gr0vel and plead for my rights and explain to you that my firearms are kept safely?” he asked rhetorically. “I keep hearing the word “solution”… you’re not going to find a solution, it doesn’t exist. You can’t find a broad brush  solution to evil.

An important point. People who want to kill will find a way. Who thought a bunch of Islamists would be able to hijack 4 planes with box cutters and do what they did? Lanza had his plan in the works for a long time. He had an intricate plan, including a 7 foot long score sheet based on the video games he played, to kill school children, because Sandy Hook was an easy target allowing the most carnage. Maybe draconian laws stop someone like Lanza from getting a gun legally. Unfortunately, he’s a criminal, and will get one elsewhere, or perhaps use a bomb. Fertilizer and diesel fuel are easy to obtain. After Tim McVeigh, were those products restricted?

After spending $1.5m to find out why lesbians are fat, now they spend $2.7 million to study lesbians who drink too much.  I could have saved them some money: People whose identify is based completely on rebellion against God’s created order are much more likely to need to anesthetize themselves against reality.

Has your media of choice told you about the abortionist on trial for killing born-alive babies?

If not, you should really expand your horizons.  Shouldn’t this be front page news, and worthy of extended series a la Casey Anthony? Via Assistant to Kermit Gosnell admits to killing ten born-alive babies:

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist now on trial in Philadelphia charged with seven counts of first-degree murder–he allegedly cut the spinal cords of late-term aborted babies who were born alive–apparently used to joke about the large size of some the infants he aborted and in one case, according to what a co-worker told the grand jury, said, “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”

Gosnell, 72, who ran a multi-million dollar abortion business in West Philadelphia, was arrested on Jan. 19, 2011, and his trial started Monday, Mar. 18, 2013. The first-degree murder counts refer to seven late-term aborted babies who were born alive and then killed, their spinal cords cut with scissors.

Gosnell is also charged with the third-degree murder of a pregnant woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, who died after being given a pain killer at Gosnell’s office. He also faces several counts of conspiracy and violation of Pennsylvania’s law against post-24-week abortions.

I was in 24 Hour Fitness at lunch one day and surprised that CNN was actually covering part of this, but my understanding is that the rest of the Leftist media is ignoring it.  After all, it doesn’t fit in with their pro-abortion propaganda or these loving abortionists who just want to help women.  Interestingly, even the pro-abortion CNN anchor was visibly mystified at a guest’s suggestions for Gosnell’s defense arguments.

In addition, did your media of choice tell you how aggressively President Obama fought to make Gosnell’s actions legal?  His battles to permit the killing of babies who survived abortions are well documented.

As has been thoroughly documented with Planned Parenthood, people who kill babies for a living will do all sorts of other evils: Hide statutory rape and sex trafficking crimes, lie, cheat, ignore safety and health regulations and more.

Note that as gruesome as these crimes are, killing a one week old human being in the womb is just as immoral.