Questioning how good God is

Minoru,

Ouch - you stayed up late!
No need to do that again - I'll still be here. :-)
And by the way, your level of English never ceases to amaze me - it is excellent.

MINORU: I have only my own experience as the basis of making any judgments.

But you don't have to - that's why I told you the story of Jesus 10 months ago and tried to help you see how worthless and self-defeating it is to seek truth inside yourself. It's not there.

whether I should or should not judge people based on my personal experiences, I would say I should.

OK.

Are you using somebody else's standards to make decisions in your daily life ?

Yes, except for the times when I act selfishly and make decisions based on my own standards. God calls that "sin".

Are you sure those standards are really from somebody else's; not just something you understood and made part of your own experience ?

Yes. I would never have made up "take up your cross and follow Jesus" myself, for example.

If you ignore this comment, I'll promise I won't post again on same topic.

Oh no, I'm not irritated at all; I welcome your interaction. I am sorry that I did not communicate that very well.
My question was: Why do YOU post your opinions here, citing (with clear disapproval) a part of the Bible where God does something you don't like?

(complaining is) a trait that runs in my family that makes me complain if I see an oppressor.

OK. And on what basis do you conclude that being an "oppressor" is wrong?
What I'm trying to help you see is that your dislikes and preferences are just that - YOURS. There is no reason why anyone else should agree with them or act the same way you do, unless the God of the Bible exists to make those laws of right and wrong. You are taking the morality that God has helped you to see and are trying to use it to condemn Him.

In a perfect world built by perfect God, wouldn't I naturally know that what he did is morally right ?

Maybe, but I don't believe this is a perfect world. It was made by a perfect God, but the world is not perfect.

Do you think that God has intentionally made the world so that people like me would question him ?

Hmm, yes, actually. God has made the world so that people who hate the light and love darkness would refuse Him.

isn't it God's will to have his morality questioned ?

No, it is sinful to do so.

Why would he have his morality questioned if he is morally right, and there's nothing to question ?

That's the really ironic thing. There is nothing to question, but sinful people still try to find ways to question Him and His morality anyway. Like you, right now. You commented saying "God is mean and hardened that king's heart!" I said "Why is that wrong?" You said "I don't know, but it's wrong for God not to create the world so that He would never be questioned." Now I'm saying, "Why is *that* wrong?"

would you think it is okay for God to want me to be out of touch with reality ?

Yes. God is the definition of good.

Why doesn't the God show me the evidence to get in touch with reality ?

There is plenty of evidence, but you only selectively use logic and rationality in your comments protesting that God doesn't give you enough evidence. That's not God's fault.

I think of you as well educated person wishing good for the world

Yes. And the highest good for any person is to repent of their sin and fall in love with Jesus Christ and be His follower.

Or do you live your life wishing your neighbors to be miserable every day?

Only until they give their life to Jesus.

What's your opinion on terrorism ?

It's a terrible thing, but I'm not sure how it's relevant.

My objection about God is that he is too personal with his driving motivations to be taken in full context of "all-mighty, all-knowing, all-perfect".

But I think that if He were less personal, you'd find a reason to complain about that too.

Perhaps God is not all-perfect on the personal level.

God is the definition of good, so He can't improve. But I don't know how you could know that He is less than perfect. How could you know that?

If he is the only one God, is it unfair for me to expect him to be all-perfect?

No.

If God is "all-whatever-they-say-of-him", by definition there was no need to do it in the first place.

I've already shown why that reasoning is flawed.


----

this particular phrase about making "his spirit stubborn" appears several times in the Old Testament.

Yes it does, you are 100% right.

it appeared as if the God has intervened with Sihon king of Heshbon and made significant change to his mind to cause (read: set up) certain events to happen.

God is in control of *everything*. He not only intervenes, He is in total control.

Could not he foresee the events and prepared it so that he did not need to make adjustments afterwards ?

I don't see why He could not have done it that way. But He did it His way. On what basis do you think it might be better the way you suggest?

If God is almighty (read: capable of setting things up the right way from the very beginning), why did he leave out the final touch ?

Because He didn't want to.

If this action was intentional, does it not suggest that God has a personality (e.g. leaving things for later instead of doing NOW) ? If God has a personality, what are his traits ?

Any Christian will tell you that God has a personality, yes. His traits are many: loving, just, righteous, holy, pure, wrathful, merciful, graceful, generous, forgiving, powerful, patient. There's more but that's all I can think of right now.

A person who loves to trample on others are rarely peaceful with his own family. What are we to expect in heaven ?

God is not a man. A **person** who tramples on others is a bad person, yes. God is not "trampling" on people - He is changing the world to make the world better by using sinful people.
I think that part of your problem is that you think people are better or at least as good as God. People are bad. I'm not sure how someone could be familiar with human history and think that people are good.
In heaven, we can expect those who love Jesus to be with Him forever, worshiping Him. But unless you repent and change your mind, you will not be there. And that makes me very sad.

A person who loves to trample on others are rarely peaceful with his own family. What are we to expect in heaven ?

I don't think that king left any writings, so it is impossible for us to know what he was thinking.

it only raises the suspicion of God being sneaky and bending people against their free wills

You don't need to be suspicious - the Bible tells us openly and clearly that God does that sometimes.

or that he is not all-knowing and all-powerful and needs making adjustments along the way.

The Bible tells us that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, so it's not telling us that.

Is it a cumulative translation error, or incorrectly added text ?

I do not think there are any variations in the manuscripts, so it's not that. And it's not a mistranslation.
It's just that your attitude needs to change.

I just wish that people would write bible in plain text, not requiring expert re-interpretation.

You think it's unclear because you don't like it. Its meaning is obvious, but I only expect those who love God to accept it.


Peace to you,
ALAN

Universalists everywhere, or, Paul vs James

It looks like not only is AB Dada a universalist, but it's looking like Dave Parker is too!
This conversation just amazes me more and more w/ virtually every statement from either Adam or Dave.

I was asked about the doctrine of Paul vs James 2, so I answered:

FF Bruce's commentary on Galatians 5 can prove handy:

"To seek it [justification] through faith in Christ was to seek it on the ground of God’s grace; to seek it through legal works was to seek it on the ground of their own merit…Paul has already made it clear (3:10) that those who seek justification through legal works do not attain it (cf. Rom 11:7), but rather incur the curse of the law; what he emphasizes here is the incompatibility of faith and works, of divine grace and human merit, where justification of the sinner before God is in question.

Here [5:5] is such a reference, however; by contrast with the vain hope of righteousness by legal works, he says, we who believe in Christ are enabled by the Spirit, through faith, to wait confidently for the hope of righteousness. The law holds out no such sure hope as this. The ‘hope of righteousness’ is the hope of a favourable verdict in the last judgment (Rom 2:5-16). For those who believe in Christ such a verdict is assured in advance by the present experience of justification by faith…In their case the eschatological verdict of ‘not guilty’ is already realized."

--F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (Erdmans 1988), 231-232.


And here is a quick cut and paste of some quotes in an article dealing w/ this topic from here...

"There is no reason to assume that James was commenting on Paul. Notice that there is no reference in his epistle to Jewish/Gentile relations in the church, which is the point of departure for the Pauline doctrine.

And there is no reason to assume that James is using the word in the same specialized sense as it acquires in Pauline thought. A word is not a doctrine. The reason we have a Pauline doctrine of justification is not because Paul uses the word, but because he has laid out a detailed theological model of justification—such as you don’t find in James.

From what I can tell, James is making a much simpler point, where faith and works are equivalent to hearing and doing (1:22-25). Don’t be hearers of the word only, but doers as well. This is a common admonition in Scripture...faith is not the ground of our justification. The ground of our justification is penal substitution. Faith is merely a condition of its individual application to the sinner...sanctification is a necessary condition of salvation, but not a condition of justification.
...we’re not talking in generic terms about man’s relation to God, but in specific terms about the sinner’s relation to his Judge."

For the purposes of this discussion, you can consider me in agreement w/ the author of that article.
My own brief commentary is this:
Paul discusses forensic justification of the dead, dirty sinner before a loving, yes, but also holy and just God in various psgs thru the NT, including Romans 2-10, most of Galatians, heavy references in Colossians, and Ephesians 1-2 (among other places). It is out of these places that the Reformation doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone has been derived. I say "Reformation doctrine" simply to give it a name and set it apart, but I will be happy to defend it from biblical exegesis.

James, by contrast, as noted above, is not discussing justification of the sinner before God.
A final note - what does James' "justification" mean, then? It is the validation before witnesses of the faith that exists. In the case of Abraham, for example, he lifts the knife to kill Isaac and thus validates the fact that he has faith in the eyes of:
-Isaac
-Sarah his wife
-the billions who have read Genesis over the centuries

The problems of the conundrum you think I have are manifold.
1) Eph 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace, NOT by works.
Romans 3:28 says we are justified by grace apart from the works of the Law.
Romans 11:6 says that grace mixed with works is no longer grace.
Scripture thus contradicts Scripture if what you have said is true.
2) The context of the psgs out of which we derive the Pauline doctrine of justification are clearly related to justification.
The context of James 2 is not.
3) We don't know how to be saved.


Problem is, Dave, you are really giving me the impression that you believe all people will be saved (when you said "our belief or faith that Christ did these things for us is evidence of our realization that we’re no longer condemned").
2 questions:
1) Do you believe that all people are saved? If not, is the vast majority of humanity (who have ever lived) saved, ie, will they be in Heaven?
2) What is your scriptural argument for the position expressed in your answer to my 1st question?

Peace,
ALAN

More Emergent confusion

Let this be a lesson to anyone who's wondering what The Emergent Church believes. They don't know either.

Note how it's getting uglier (not in terms of tone of voice but in terms of implication of this guy Dave's doctrine) over at the Living Room blog.

Then if you have time, you can check out Dan Kimball's comments at a recent and related discussion here and specifically here.

That's a far cry from where Dave Parker is going in his discussion w/ me. I can't tell if this is really his position or whether he is just reflexively going after the guy who believes God's Word is final. Perhaps later I'll be able to tell.

Here's my most recent post to him:

Dave,

As far as the questions on
-homosexuals
-uninhibited worship
-life experiences for sermons
-McLaren
-love motivating us
let’s call it good. I think the explanation is sufficient. I don’t agree w/ you on 100% of it but it’s close enough that right now I don’t want to mess w/ it.

However, I am disturbed in the extreme by your comments on sola fide and the requirements for being a Christian.

–Did you not just negate your list of requirements in claiming that you hold to “sola fide”?
>>Were those things I listed works or beliefs? Beliefs. This objection makes no sense.

–Is it “justification by grace thru faith alone”, or does one also have to adhere to your list of beliefs?
>>It’s both since they are in harmony.

–And if one must adhere, then baptism must make your list! Why? You’ll not find one single post-resurrection “salvation” that does not include baptism!!!
>>I don’t deny that NT salvations were followed by baptism. So what? And that’s the key - the salvations were FOLLOWED by baptism.

–your “thru faith alone” leverages heavily against James’ “not by faith alone.”
–Regarding the “sola fide” position, have you considered that James (the brother of Jesus) and author of a canonized NT letter disagrees with you!?!
>>This is where I get really scared for you. You are a leader of a ‘faith community’ and don’t understand the doctrine of sola fide and justification vs sanctification?
And your calling out my “thru faith alone” (ie, Ephesians 2:8-9) vs James 2 is based on your inability to understand the context of Ephesians 2, Romans, and James.
Let me ask you this - how, according to YOU, are we justified before God?

–You come across to me as a corner preacher with a bullhorn, tracts, and a giant billboard strapped to your body, “Repent, the end is near!!!”
>>I have already pointed out to you that Jesus preached “Repent for the kingdom of God is near” as well as related subjects.
And I suspect I come across that way to you b/c you react almost instinctively, reflexively against the claim that God’s revelation on sin, judgment, and salvation is clear, understandable, and final.
Above, you do nothing less than accuse God’s inspired Scriptures of containing a contradiction, so maybe it shouldn’t surprise me. Do you believe the Bible to be inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed revelation of God? If not, does one exist? If so, are there others?

Thanks Dave.
Peace,
ALAN

---------

All that to say, I'm glad I didn't jump immediately to calling him "brother". That is an appellation that should mean something, and if applied between him and me, it loses its flavor. I love the bonds of brotherhood in Christ where they exist enough not to dilute them.

Defeat

Adam has admitted defeat.

-Since Judgment is gone, of course there is no NEED, no COMMAND to be good.

-Since Christ only prayed once in public, at the request of His Apostles to teach them, we have to believe that prayer was understood to be private and personal.

-We saw God threatening to destroy the Earth in the Old Testament -- He never did.

Adam is still, of course, welcome to dialogue here, but that last one, whooo boy!
And he hasn't even gotten to the meat of my objections yet.

He is risen indeed! Have a blessed Pascha.

I'm not trying to CONVINCE you to embrace heresy...

ADAM said: The opinions listed below are not meant to CONVINCE YOU that your views are "wrong" or "ungodly"

RHOLOGY: Then why should I or anyone else care what you have to say?

ADAM: I am happy that you have your views if they fulfill you.

RHOLOGY: The happy-go-lucky, head-in-the-sand view of the universalist. See, that's what I don't get. Everyone will be saved, there's no sin or judgment. Why do you even interact w/ me here or at the Living Room blog?

ADAM: the people of the OT, and their stories, are dung.

RHOLOGY: OK, so it's not the OT **itself** that is dung. Man, seriously, in the future you could state it better right off the bat.
But Abraham, though he was "but dust and ashes" by his own admission, yet b/c he had faith, was justified and a righteous man. We do the Atonement and power of Christ a disservice when we talk that way of His people.

ADAM: I am here to show people that my views are not anti-Christianity,

RHOLOGY: Since Xtianity is defined by the Bible, and you are in so many direct conflicts w/ biblical teaching, I cannot agree.

ADAM: The definition of heretic within the Book and also in modern dictionaries is "That which goes against the Organized Church."

RHOLOGY: I don't care about that - I am using a biblical concept.

ADAM: So why did God threaten (and do!) Judgment against Israel and the Jews? God never changes, right?

RHOLOGY: What a ridiculous argument. Does that mean God has to *change* when He *does* something different? Please - you don't believe that and I don't.

ADAM: I say His Plan changed based on saving all men.

RHOLOGY: And Jesus said different, so there again we have confirmation that you are an enemy of God.

ADAM: The Law was needed as the guardian of Israel until the true guardian came

RHOLOGY: Agreed. But WHY did we need it to lead us to Christ? Hint - it's right there at the end of v. 24.
And this "made right w/ God" = dikaioo, better translated as "justified".

ADAM: After Christ's Presence? None.

RHOLOGY: Assertion w/o an argument that nobody would accept unless and until they slammed your Kool-Aid and asked for seconds.

ADAM: The God of peace will come "soon."

RHOLOGY: Rom 16:20 - The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Not only are you allergic to context but also to accurate citations.

ADAM: English translations were coopted by mortals who desired control and profit. LaHaye, Scofield, Moody, Hinn, Hagee, the Popes -- all modified the texts to suit their own lives.

RHOLOGY: Prove it, starting w/ this question - why can I buy a Nestle-Aland Greek NT and check it against Codex Vaticanus and find 99% correspondence?

ADAM: there are also verses that are adamant against the Jews of Rome who disbelieve

RHOLOGY: It doesn't say anything about the Jews OF ROME, at least in chs 1-3.

ADAM: Revelation shows us who is to be Judged

RHOLOGY: It also says that ALL the dead will be judged, including "the sea gave up all the dead in it", and those who were not found in the Book of Life were thrown into the Lake of Fire. That's not just Israel.
It's amazing - you write so much but skip so much too.
Would you mind dealing w/ some of my main 3 points on my Hymenaeanism Discussed post? Those are more cogent to our differences.

Peace,
ALAN

Where did Adam go?

It has now been over 48 hours since Adam last posted a comment.
I guess I'm wondering where he went.

Obviously it is too soon to say anything about the final outcome of our little debate, but I hope he hasn't flown the coop.

Adam, where are you?

Deeper into Gnosticism and relativistic morality

Clean cars run better. So do clean minds.

-1 Cor 15:50-52 is an interesting passage that I've discussed often with Preterists and Futurists alike. I'm not certain that the passage talks about our physical bodies changing.

I've already cited numerous psgs to the effect that we come in bodies resembling Christ's. His resurrected body was physical and glorified. He was tangible, He ate fish, He walked, He started a fire and put fish to roast over it, He invited people to touch Him (and they did), etc.
Just like 1 John 1:1 says - "1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have TOUCHED WITH OUR HANDS, concerning the word of life"

-Colossians 2:12 talks of those who were raised with Christ into new life -- but they had not changed, had they? What changed? Their spiritual lives, for sure.

Yes, but that is where our positions are parallel.

-Go to verse 15 and you see that the Book talks of "spiritual rulers and authorities" not physical kings. Interesting that they speak of Spiritual rulers who truly did not rule the Spiritual realm.

Yes, but the thought is not continuous. Who cares?

-no new bodies in this new life.

Right, b/c they come later.

-The word used by Peter when he "saw" him was actually "He appeared to me"

It doesn't matter, for the reasons cited above.

-Even Peter explained that your body must die before it becomes a new body -- the seed dies before the plant comes to grow.

Yes, a new *body*.

-Luke 17:20: One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, "When will the Kingdom of God come?" Jesus replied, "The Kingdom of God can't be detected by visible signs

B/c Jesus was preaching to them that the Kingdom had ALREADY come upon them. And this was 30 AD! In what sense? That the "finger of God" was among them, that the Messiah had come.
And geez, you didn't even cite the next verse, which also wrecks your position.

20Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

In numerous places the Pharisees demanded signs from Him and He chastised them for being sinful and refusing the signs He had already shared. That's the way we must take this. But we know from Matt 24 that the sign of the Son will appear, so it's a different kind of coming.

-Luke 17:22 - "The time is coming when you will long to see the day when the Son of Man returns, but you won't see it.

Exactly, b/c He won't return before they have died. I can't believe that
1) you could only cite 2 verses w/in 2 verses of each other to support your position
2) you left out the one in the middle that wrecks your position
3) the 2nd one ALSO wrecks your position.

-But the 1000 years means nothing here, Peter was just explaining God's patience, not actually saying that 1 day = 1000 years.

To God it is. To us, it may seem a long time.

-As for 40 years, that is one generation (Biblically relevant).

You turn the Millennium of Revelation into 40 yrs. I would like to know how you justify it.

-Christ said He would Return in that very generation (40 years).

Where?

-Christ returned so long ago and most ignored it because it reduced their power to scare others into paying them to speak to them about scary, scary things.

That's a mighty big accusation to throw at a LOT of people. I wonder if you can back it up.

-Over and over Jesus said "at hand" and "quickly" and "soon."

But you forget the other places where Jesus said things that disagree w/ you. You have selective vision.

-Ezekiel 12's warning was not about the New Covenant and Jesus, it was about God's judgment against those Jews which happened immediately after Ezekiel prophecized it.

You may have a point. But you must interact, then, w/
Ezek 36

22"Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

-(In Revelation) What specifically would you say has not happened?

I've listed quite a few things you've not responded to yet. I'll not retype them.

-But Christ wasn't talking about Heaven, He was talking about the Kingdom on the earth, which even existed when the Pharisees talked to Him. He told them it existed in their very day but they didn't see it.

Agreed, that's part of the Kingdom (since Messiah came) but you're not dealing w/ Revelation 21-22 still.
The Curse brings death, which brings decay. The Curse is gone in the Eternal Kingdom of Rev 21-22. Things decay NOW. We are not, therefore, in the Eternal Kingdom.
Seriously, you need to start dealing w/ Rev 21-22 soon.

-(RE Is 65:17)The phrase "old Heaven and Earth" meant one thing to the Jews -- their Temple.

Is 65:17-25

17"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.
18But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness.
19I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress.
20No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
21They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them.
24Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear.
25The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

I don't see the Temple there. To be 100% sure, modern Jerusalem or Jerusalem in dang near ANY period of history isn't described here.
I see eternity and alot of things that are not present in the earth TODAY.
Your theology doesn't match the Word of God. Repent of your theology.

-Christ was speaking of destroying "the old Heaven and Earth," which was the Temple (which happened!)

John 2:18-22

18So the Jews said to him, "What sign do you show us for doing these things?" 19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" 21But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

In a *separate* instance He spoke of destroying the temple in Jerusalem. But the parallel to the body of Christ is w/ His body, not the temple.

-Can you see the Church today? No, because it exists within YOU.

Show me ANY psg of Scr to support that. The ecclesia is always in the NT a GROUP of people gathered to do quite a few things, which I've already told you. Make arguments, not bare assertions.

-It is not a physical building like the Temple was, it is spiritual and seen through good deeds.

It is physical AND spiritual, and it is the gathering of the believers in Jesus.
Where do you get this idea of "seen through good deeds"? What does that mean?

-the Earth will never perish (there's a Bible verse about that, actually).

Show me - I've already cited several which clearly state the earth's days are numbered.

-The Heavenly Kingdom we don't really know what to make of, but we do know it will be glorious beyond belief.

We know all about it from Revelation.
I also know that you won't be there, b/c liars don't go there. And you deny that Jesus has come in the flesh (1 Jn 4) - you are a liar.

-Tithes and offerings? When did Jesus tell people to sell everything and bring Him their proceeds?

Matthew 19:16-23

-Christ wanted us to go out into our daily lives, not to force people to come to us.

Assertion w/o an argument.

...

-We weren't meant to govern over each other, though.

Romans 13 disagrees w/ you.
And you already explained your disagreement w/ me over that back at the Living Room. You sidestepped the issue when I asked you about WW2 and whether the Holocaust was sinful. You said:

ADAM: Come on, hypocrite, the Holocaust to a Futurist was blessed by God! Look, friend, offer your own thoughts to your support of Romans as bond — Romans 13:

No, I don't believe that and don't have to.
Romans 13 says that the gov't is instituted "for your good" and of its authority to punish wrongdoers. That's dealing w/ the context, sthg which you are unable to do b/c it would destroy your idolatrous theology. So...an evil gov't like the Nazis, I would be obligated to "obey God rather than men" and oppose it b/c it's MURDERING PEOPLE.

The only way you can get around the gov't's institution by God is to claim (absent any support from anywhere near the psg in Romans) that all this stuff means nothing now that the "Kingdom has come". You're a long way off from coherence.

-we definitely don't have to worry about Judgment.

The battle cry of millions of rebels against God for 2 millennia. "Where is the promise of His coming?"

-Through all actions we perform on others, we should think of love first

Why "should" we? Why not simply eat, drink, and be merry, since there is no sin and no judgment? You yourself said this:

ADAM: If I said that Jesus commanded us to do anything, I did it in error. I have never felt that Jesus offered anyone commands to do anything

-He knew where it would lead us -- to the Kingdom where all can serve and love.

Yes, and we're not there yet. It's clear to everyone except you.

Peace.

Timing is everything!

Adam has commented, and I thank him for his responses. He's lost a little fleetness of foot since the last time we talked, but hopefully he can get it back.

-Funny that Paul rebuked Hymenaeus for his timing, not for what he taught.

I doubt he called his TIMING "gangrene".

-It is interesting that Paul never corrected Hymenaeus on his teaching of HOW the New Kingdom would come.

3-4 sentences in the NT deal w/ him. Let's look elsewhere. You can start w/ all the psgs I've already cited.

-Any Christian then could look around and see that nothing really changed, but they didn't call him out on THAT -- just the timing. Paul also knew that the New Kingdom would come spiritually, not physically.

That's an interesting thing to say. Let me ask you sthg.

1 Cor 15:50-52 says we will all be changed. In 70 AD, what happened to the Corinthian church? How were they changed?

-Christ Himself said it would not be visible.

Where?

-As to 2 Peter 3, I think we can agree that the 1000 years/1 day comes from Psalm 90, correct?

Oh, perhaps.
You know, if you're going to get snarky about the interp of what 1000 yrs means, how do you justify transmogrifying it into less than 40 years?

-They're not saying that "at hand" or "quickly" means thousands of years, at all.

An assertion that fails to take the context into acct. The context is people like you, the scoffers, who say "Where is the promise of His coming?"
You know, in 2000 yrs they haven't stopped saying that.

-They're just showing God's patience

You don't believe in God's patience b/c you find it unconscionable that God could wait more than a few decades to accomplish His grand plan.

-quickly means quickly.

You mean like in Ezek 12:21-28?
I see "the days are near" in there, as well as "but in your days, O rebellious house...I will perform it" and particularly 27-28:

26And the word of the LORD came to me: 27"Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, 'The vision that he sees is for many days from now, and he prophesies of times far off.' 28Therefore say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: None of my words will be delayed any longer, but the word that I speak will be performed, declares the Lord GOD."

And yet the New Covenant, to which this refers, came about 400 years later!
Your insistence on timing being more important than WHAT THE THING IS is bunk. God is way bigger than you think He is.

-just as the unbelieving Jews of the 1st Century were,

I believe that God's judgment fell on them in 70 AD. But that's not The Judgment, it's not The Resurrection, it's not The Parousia. How do I know? Tons of things the Bible tells us will happen then didn't.

-Romans 5:18 says that Christ's Return was for everyone, by the way. It doesn't save for believers alone.

True, but His return will be judgment, fearful wrath for unbelievers.

-Romans 5, and I see no place where the curse of Adam would be lifted.

I was referring to the dichotomy between Adam = Death/Condemnation and Christ = life/justification.
The Curse of Genesis 3 does have, after all, "and to dust you shall return." That's where death came in.

-I'm not sure where you read that mortal things won't decay

Exactly - it's your ludicrous position that made me bring it up. Things decay NOW. In the eternal Kingdom, they won't. Ergo, this is not the eternal Kingdom.

-It is obvious from the mess that the temples of organized religion are in that very few indeed do understand that the Kingdom is now, and the Ecclesia of God is within all to grasp. So many mortal lives wasted in judgment of others instead of loving others and serving others.

Your theology is an absolute catastrophe.

-the nations would still exist. And they do.

Why is that a problem for my position?

-Revelation was NOT about destroying this mortal earth

Is 65:17
Rev 21:1 (Turi already brought this up - I am losing confidence in your reading comprehension and retention abilities)
2 Pet 3:10
It's hard to have a new earth w/o blowing up the 1st.

-We are given new spiritual and holy bodies, but our mortal bodies don't change.

This assertion did not deal w/ the psgs I cited to the contrary. You need to interact w/ those.

-but the imperishable spiritual ones can, and do!

But *CHRIST'S* body was not merely spiritual - check 1 John for that one.
Wow - a Hymenaean, a Gnostic, AND a Docetist. You're racking up the points, my friend.

-lying has nothing to do with Revelation.

P1: It says liars will not enter in.
P2: I say Christ is raised PHYSICALLY as will we all, in the eternal Kingdom.
P3: You say we're already in the eternal Kingdom.

S: Therefore, I'm a liar and did not enter in.

Crude syllogism, but it demonstrates the incoherence of your position.

-Repent from what?

Your sin.

-I don't lie. I don't trick others in believing me. I use the very Book to show people God's Love for everyone, even the non-believer (but especially the believer). I give away all of my extra earnings to those who believe.

And your prideful arrogance.

-I don't believe in 'churches' as even in the Book we don't see denominations or churches

You are blind - >80% of references to 'ecclesia' in the NT are to local bodies of believers.

-For those who ignore it, they are not condemned.

See my previous post on Hell.

-If you believe people are condemned, where do they go after mortal death?

Hell.

-If you believe salvation is for today, who is saved?

Those who are justified by God's grace through faith alone.

-Jesus said only the few would see the Kingdom in His timeframe, so how is it that 2.1 billion Christians would be "a few" (?)

You forgot the context - He's contrasting "the many" w/ "the few". Few will find life in comparison w/ the many who go to destruction.

-Stop going to your congregations

Heb 10:23-25
There's another thing to repent of - exhorting others to disobey God.

-He prepared such a glorious and perfect Kingdom for us, here and now

The sad thing is that you're settling for this earth, and you will settle - this is as close to Heaven as you're ever going to get, unless you repent.

Peace.

Hell is not in the Bible

Adam said:

And what exactly is your Biblical basis for "destruction" (?)...there is no Hell in the Bible

You know, you're not the only one in the world who has a problem w/ the doctrine of Hell. Mormons do, JWs do, atheists definitely do, liberals do.
But it's just not a possible position to hold if you care about the Bible.

Matt 7:13 - For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction,
Matt 7:23 - And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Matt 10:28 - Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt 11:24 - But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."
Matt 12:37-41 - for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned...The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
Matt 23:33 - You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
Matt 25:41 & 46 - Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels...And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
John 5:24 - He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 5:28-29 - Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

You who claim to care so much about not making Jesus out to be a liar, you have no excuse not to believe in the eternal punishment of the reprobate.

Hear what the rest of the Scripture has to say:

Is 66:24 - "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."
Dan 12:2 - And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Rom 2:5 - But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
Rom 2:8 - but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.
Rom 2:12 - For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Rom 5:18 - Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,
Rom 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death
Rom 8:3 - By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh
2 Thess 1:9 - They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
Jude 7 - just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 12-13 - 12These are blemishes on your love feasts...casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
Rev 14:11 - And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
Rev 20:15 - And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

There's more where that came from, but that's a good start.

Hymenaenism discussed

In the combox for my previous post, Adam has already been stirring up controversy w/ the erstwhile Italian scholar Turi, and Turi has rightly taken him to task:

I cannot imagine how anyone could honestly represent modern history as the New Earth... tell this Adam fellow when you get to talking with him that I at least am highly disappointed and should like my money back.

Indeed.
A cursory glance over Adam's comments on the LivingRoom blog will reveal that he holds to all sorts of wacked-out ideas. No offense is intended to him personally, but rather a warning - he is a blind man leading other blind men and is on his way to destruction.

One of my main thesis statements for responding to Adam's Hymenaean claims will be 2 Peter 3:

2that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." 5For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

8But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

(boldface mine, of course)

Hymenaeanism is an ancient heresy, one of the oldest. It stems from Paul's twice mentioning having to rebuke Hymenaeus for teaching that the resurrection had already occurred. Adam does the same, and from this erroneous position flows a stream of twisted, damnable, and indeed damnING doctrine; that sin is gone, that Christ has already come, that the Old Testament is garbage, that there is no heaven or hell, that all will be "saved", that "saved" is totally different from the NT presentation of it, that the resurrection is not of the body.

He is one of the scoffers mentioned in the 2 Peter passage. He says things like

In my Bible, it shows Christ reminding those early Christians that He would be coming back to vanquish sin, while some of them would still be alive, in the current generation. It doesn’t say that He might take 2000 years to return. Are you calling Christ a liar, or is my Bible wrong when it says He was returning in that generation, while some of the first Christians were still alive, to vanquish sin once and for all, reuniting all to God’s favor?

Loose translation: Where is the promise of His coming?

Adam believes that the judgment has already occurred and that Christ has already come back.
Turi already touched on one of the arguments I would like to cite against his position.

Point 1 - The Curse is not yet lifted
Romans 5 lets us know that Jesus is the 2nd Adam, Who will overturn the curse laid upon humanity in Genesis 3.
Do women still have pain in childbirth? Do thistles still grow in the garden? Does man still work hard to eat his bread? Does he still return to dust? Of course!
But wait - Revelation 22 tells us in v. 3 that

No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him.

If this earth is the new earth, why is the creation still in bondage to decay?

Point 2 - The Resurrection is inextricably linked to Christ's Parousia (coming)
Adam and other Hymenaeans will tell you that the resurrection has already taken place, but the only way they can hold that position is to redefine drastically what "resurrection" is, and their definition ends up very far from the NT definition.
You know, Adam, Mormons believe in the "resurrection" also. It's what you mean by it.
1 Cor 15:12-57 is a bit long to post here, but here are some key parts:

v.14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

v.17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

v.22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

v.35But someone [read: Adam] will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"

v.50I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

The resurrection occurs at the same time as the judgment, the Last Day!
John 6:39
Acts 17:30-32

Believers' bodies will be changed at the resurrection to resemble Christ's resurrected, glorified body.
Romans 6:5
Phil 3:20
Why? B/c, as 1 Cor 15 says, the perishable cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Point 3 - Liars don't enter in

Finally, I want to note that we preach Christ crucified and resurrected. But if Adam is right, we are liars according to 1 Cor 15:15, and our faith is VAIN. I don't know why Adam claims the name "Christian", but then again I don't understand how he could hold the position he does.

Rev 21:

22And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. 23And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, 25and its gates will never be shut by day--and there will be no night there. 26They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. 27But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

But since I preach what I preach, I am a liar if Adam is right. Yet, according to him I still live in the City and all has been fulfilled, and I participate in it (albeit indirectly).
Rev 22:15 tells us that liars will not enter in.


This is a plea for Adam to repent of his false teaching, to turn and be saved. Psalm 2 (which Adam rejects as "dung"), not to mention numerous other passages in the Scriptures, tells us of the fearful wrath of the LORD as He regards the scoffers who mock Him. Adam, it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Here's hoping the Holy Spirit will convict you of your sin.

A recent and perhaps upcoming conversation

So here's the story.
I was reading at Slice of Laodicea, was directed to this video, tried to comment (and Youtube swallowed all but my last comment), clicked over to Dave the video-maker's blog, commented there on the video's worrying, Emergent Church-esque postmodernist tendencies, got into a conversation, and then encountered another poster there named Adam, who is a voluminous writer (which means he writes a whole bunch).
Adam started saying some things I found very strange (and they only got worse from there), and eventually I discovered that he is a Hymenaean, or Hyper-Preterist (sometimes called a Full Preterist). It wasn't long before he said more than a few things that made it clear he was more than an interlocutor who disagreed - he is a heretic, "gangrene" in the church, whose teaching will cause "shipwreck of the faith".
Adam is the 1st Hymenaean I've ever encountered, so it was certainly interesting to read his arguments and try to wrap my brain around them. Our interaction on Dave's combox took us a bit far afield of the original topic so I invited Adam to defend his views on my blog later on when I got some more time. He said he would seriously consider doing so, and this is an invitation to respond to the next post I write, where I will respond to his posts.
Of course, he can respond to this one too, but I don't have time to lay out much argument now. I hope to get to it w/in 4-5 days.
As always, I don't delete or police comments, and this time I may have met more than my match in terms of verbosity.

I plan to bring up questions relating to the resurrection, since it is the most disturbing and heretical of his beliefs. Call it a teaser, Adam. Hopefully it will be a good time.

At least one judge in Germany thinks consistently

This story cracks me up. I haven't completely worked out in my mind all the implications of believing the judge did the right or wrong thing, but you have to say that she was acting consistently.

So disingenuous but so funny!

Saw this here while reading thru the other interactions with it here and here.
The logical problems w/ it are manifold (including, but not limited to, the fact that even if the Roman Catholic Magisterium is infallible, you the private individual still have to interpret the maze of Canon law and Church decrees and encyclicals, and you are very fallible) but the picture is really funny. Click on it and it'll take you to the one of the original posts in the conversation.

Just a little computer info

I just wanted to let you know about this.
Just in case it happens, you'll be prepared.

A gem of an exchange

Between Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheist and heroine of secularism, and Walter Martin, the late founder of the Christian Research Institute...

From this page, this file, at minute 23:

Walter Martin: You admit that from nothing, nothing comes, correct?
Madalyn Murray O'Hair: No, I don't admit anything.
WM: Good heavens, woman, you must admit that from nothing nothing will come.
MMO: If you said, this is your statement...
WM: Will you admit it?
MMO: I have no idea...if...
WM: Oh, this is absurd.
MMO: No, this is not absurd!

Atheists and their comboxes

Just a quick comment about recent interactions, specifically w/ Moth and Troy Waller.
Each has protested to me about the way I interacted w/ them. I don't believe I was particularly rude to them. I certainly never used (and never use at all) any profanity or obscene insults. I never said anythg resembling "you are an idiot".
What I DID do was dismantle their arguments and answer their objections, in a few cases several times and in a few other cases answered a few follow-ups to the original objection.
For that, Troy refuses to post any more of my comments on his blog.

Now, as I told Moth in this combox, he and Troy have implicitly opened themselves up for interactions like this. Why?
B/c each is a guy who:
1) posts his thoughts about Christianity,
2) on a blog w/ a polemic nature and a polemical name (The Ain't-Christian and Why I Don't Believe);
3) has thereby opened himself up to debate from those who disagree (like me), and
4) who has thus far shown willingness to discuss, in line w/ the nature of his blog.

However, when the going got tough for Troy, he banned me.
When the going got tough for Moth, to his credit, he did indeed post my comments and make a response (albeit not in a way that responded to the substance of my arguments but rather pleaded lack of time or of "something that would come close to your level of intellectuality" [his words] on his part).
Now, Moth has asked me to leave well enough alone as far as leaving challenging comments in his combox. I will honor that as long as the subject matter does not directly involve my person.

I simply ask the reader: how seriously can we take someone who fulfills the 4 points above but who runs away from at least semi-knowledgeable challenges? Where does the "free thinking" reside?
Troy flat refused.
Moth tried for a while, was called on several mistakes, particularly in regards to biblical exegesis, and then resorted to insulting me in several comboxes.

As always, comments are welcome from anyone. Beware though - I'll probably answer them.

Why not restore communion?

It's precisely b/c of the mindset revealed by followers of Rome and Constantinople in biblical discussion that the notion of reuniting w/ them in spiritual communion is unthinkable for the believer in the faith revealed in the Bible.
Consider the convo I had just last night w/ an EO acquaintance (not him but rather a mutual friend) over AIM chat.
We small talked a bit about our pasts and his seminary experience and such (he has an MDiv from an Eastern Orthodox seminary and is EO himself). I then expressed my thankfulness for my local church and for the fact that we are not following a large trend in the SBC (discussed often here, here, and here as well as numerous other places).
Which led him to share about his experience at his EO baptism. Which led me to ask him whether he shares that testimony and the Gospel w/ unbelievers. His answer began to indicate a problem: Not usually directly, but he invites people to come to church or to pray, and he tells them that his faith in Christ has changed his life.

Is that the Gospel, friends?

So I asked him about that, commenting that people do need to hear the Gospel. (The fact that the Gospel is "the power of God" went unmentioned, but that's why I said that.)
He protested that this can be too direct, that he was "not sure that being more direct would necessarily work", that such an approach might alienate the unbeliever more.
Now, perhaps he meant just walking up to people and cold-preaching at them, and I can understand his thinking, though I'm unconvinced that such an approach is necessarily wrong. But I DID bring up the fact that unbelievers are "enemies of God" by bringing up Romans 8:6-8.
ME: "if they loved Him then they would love His Son and they would be Christians"
ME (later): more curious about how you interpret "the sinful mind is hostile to God" as anythg other than that; i just quoted the psg, didn't interp it at all

And that's the key - I quoted Scripture to him several times, and each time he responded w/ what boils down to "your interpretation is wrong". But friends, I didn't interpret it at all! I just quoted it, he felt the force of the divine words and tried to squirm away from them. No wonder Heb 4:12 is in there too.
He then asked me how I can assume off the bat that people hate God. I pointed out that Rom 8 says the mind set on the flesh is death.
This brought us to the crux of the matter, and I'll paraphrase:
HE: If someone is seeking the truth
ME: enemies of God are not seeking, no one seeks God
HE: That is ridiculous. (Now I will quote him:) "that is totally heretical"
ME: you just called a direct quotation from Romans 3 heretical
HE: You took that out of context.
ME: the very next verse explains: 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. i don't deny that He calls all
HE: That is talking about Jews.
ME: But it says "EVERY MOUTH." Talk about missing context. You can't even see it in the same verse.

Now, I don't think that he really believes the Apostle Paul to have been a heretic, but notice his visceral reaction to my quoting Scripture to him to the effect that all men are enemies of God, hate God, and are not seeking Him. To him the obvious conclusion of the Romans 3 passage is a terrible, heretical idea!
This is what the Lord Jesus warned us about - putting the traditions of men over the Word of God.
Do we react violently against what God has said? Do we jump to calling it evil, overly pious, too rigorous? Are we not putting ourselves in the unenviable position of judging the Judge of the universe?
As long as this attitude prevails among our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends, that's all they will remain - friends. I cannot call brother one who rejects the Word of God in such a way. May God help him.

At midnight I woke up in a flash

With a brainstorm. This doesn't happen to me all that often, but it did last night, and I said "That's brilliant" out loud. There may indeed be tons of people out there who have already thought of this, but it was cool to me and I'm glad that the thought appeared in my mind. I will credit the Holy Spirit for planting the idea in there.

It has to do w/ the age of the earth. As I'm sure you know, it is oft claimed that an old earth is the more "scientific" position, and that one would have to hold to a young earth position (say, less than 10,000 yrs old) solely on faith. What I've been discovering in my journeys of thought, debate, and polemics over the last 3-4 yrs, however, is that any opponent of my position who accuses me of blind faith has at least an equal investment of blind, unprovable faith in their own position, but they don't realise it (for the most part) or hide it (I suspect that is the case for at least a few).

Similar ideas to these were put forward recently at Triablogue by the matchless Steve Hays, but here I will distill them into a form more friendly to my way of thinking. (Consider that a big fat hat tip and a disclaimer - I don't claim originality here.)

The point made by Hays was that the substances/elements/stuff usually used to test the passage of time are only incidentally useful for that, which is to say that uranium's purpose is not to tell time. Nor is a rooster's purpose to tell time, though it does *incidentally* aid to wake me up in the morning.
So an evolutionist will claim that these processes are tested to tell us how old they are, but my question is: how did you test the hypothesis that the same 'aging' processes that you use to find the age of the earth were still in operation in the same manner, say, 1 million yrs ago?
If you were/are unable to test that hypothesis, then why should anyone accept an old earth as 'scientific'?
As so often claimed by evolutionists, science = testability, and I've been asked several times for possible defeaters for the young-earth position. I tell them they have to falsify the existence of the God of the Bible. Now I turn the question back on them (which is far too infrequently done). Show me a way you can test that *assumption* of modern evolutionary science.

My opponent might object: "But you are injecting terrible uncertainties and destroying scientific progress!"
Ah, true. However,
-Am I not more in line w/ the spirit of scientific inquiry over history?
-That sounds like a problem for an atheist, but not for a theist.
-It's not progress if it did not arrive at truth. Which it has not in this case.

In the end, if you insist on holding to an old earth on faith, I don't see why I'm unjustified in insisting you test that hypothesis and show me the results, as you so often do to me. Test the hypothesis SCIENTIFICALLY (ie, using the scientific method) that the same aging processes were in place 1 million yrs ago as are in place today. As it is, you are merely assuming it.

My pastor blogs!

Just wanted to say that. I think he's growing into it and all that, but I haven't looked at it that much yet.
You can check him out here. I added him to my sidebar.
Also, there are lots more pix and at least one more video to see in my pic and video galleries.

Because I've been sick

I had some posts planned, such as dealing w/ a friend's treatise regarding a non-biblical understanding of the Atonement, and then I've gotten into a tiny tangle w/ an atheist to whose blog I was referred by a friend and who, as it turns out, takes part in the decidedly clumsy Christianity Debunkers...
But reality hits. Exactly 2 weeks ago I started feeling a little strange, w/ a bit of a sore throat and some fatigue. Thought nothing of it, went out of town, got sicker, and by Sunday the 2 hour drive back (during which I just rode in the passenger seat) was torture. The Urgent Care facility said it was strep throat and gave me penicillin and an analgesic mouthwash though I could barely talk by that time and my throat was really swollen. At least I was able to subsist on the oxycodone left over from my wife's Rx when she had our daughter (but don't tell anyone, k?) Sunday began what has been the worst, most miserable and painful week of my life up to this point. My throat has hurt so bad and my tonsils have become incredibly swollen that on Thursday I had to have one drained (yuck). By Saturday morning, however, I had seen little improvement otherwise so I just said forget it and went to the ER. They said, "Um, you're dehydrated," to which I responded, "No kidding. I've been living on pills and tea, hold most of the tea, for the past 5 days." A few bags of saline and some steroid drips later, we were in business.
And then they dropped the other shoe - "Sir, you have mono."
Which is a bit of a validation - at least such a difficult time came out of being sick w/ TWO painful illnesses and not just one.
Anyway, this week has been a week of recovery and fatigue. I don't do much and so I haven't posted anything. I don't have the energy. So I hope to see you later. I'll go back to work by the middle of next week for some half-days. I thank God that my job has been so understanding.
Tough time. Glad I'm thru it.

Very ironic. The bad kind of ironic.

Seen yesterday on my evening commute, a bumper sticker on a very shiny and new SUV:

"Don't let the car fool you, my treasure is in heaven."

Bugged me a little.

The drugs I need

I've been heavy-handed on all this false prophet and death penalty stuff.

How about some comic relief?
Great name - Progenitorovox. I love it.

Just one more thing about Pat

Not that I want to belabor this more than necessary but I would like to offer a few responses to what was said in the counter-petition mentioned earlier.

1) I as a Christian am only a hypocrite if I claim to be sinless. If I claim to be a sinFUL follower of the sinLESS Lord Jesus Christ, where is the "mask", the deception I put on?
For the record, I claim the latter, not the former.

2) Yes, God will judge Pat Robertson.

Deuteronomy 18:18-22 --

18I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. 20But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' 21And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'-- 22when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

(I forgot that the death penalty was prescribed in v. 20 in my last post.)
And this is indeed the crux of the question. Would God use as his prophetic mouthpiece a man who prophesies EVEN ONE THING incorrectly? How then could His voice be clearly communicated to His people? Obviously knowing this, God provided, in OT Israel, for the death penalty of a so-called prophet who would say something that would not come true. Even one time is enough for execution.
God takes this deadly seriously. While I don't think Pat R should be put to death, shall we believe him to be a prophet of God? And even Pat R has admitted that his tsunami prophecy was wrong and says "I have a relatively good track record; sometimes I miss."
But Pat, it's not YOU speaking, supposedly. It's on behalf of the Lord that you presume to speak. Does God say "Oops. Well, I'm still around 80%"?

Given that, as a friend noted, this petition is the most loving thing we could do for Pat, to turn him back from God's impending judgment for misusing God's name and Pat's own public recognisability.

3) Another concern seems to be that the petition is asking Pat R to go away into hiding forever and never to speak again. It is not. Read it again - it's asking him to stop making "prophetic" statements.

"...we respectfully and earnestly exhort him to stand down from his self-appointed position as "prophet" -- that is, one who receives God's own words and speaks them to the world apart from established Scripture -- and apologize to the church, and on behalf of the church to those who have witnessed his abuses, for his on-going representation of himself as a mouthpiece for God Almighty."
It's not calling for CBN to pack it in.

4) The guy won't stop. Look at that link again...
"Pat Robertson said Tuesday God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in 'mass killing' late in 2007.
'I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear,' he said during his news-and-talk television show 'The 700 Club' on the Christian Broadcasting Network. ' The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that.'"

What will he say when he's wrong this time? Is it not possible some might scoff at the "God" who would make false predictions?

If you care to, sign the petition.

If not, thanks for reading.

My photo galleries and a comment on Pat R

I'm putting a link to my picture galleries on the sidebar.

Also, I emailed a bunch of my friends a link to that petition to Pat Robertson, and it seems I got one of them all riled up. He apparently emailed a replacement petition to those same friends, most of which he does not know at all (though some he does know). His petition requests that all who bear the name "Christian," and who fail to live up to the name 100% of the time, for that reason renounce the name of Christian b/c we are hypocrites.

For a few reasons, his reasoning is faulty.

1) Christians are by necessity the least hypocritical of any people on earth, b/c Christians do not willfully reject the truth of the universe around us, which speaks powerfully to the truth of the existence, and to an extent even the identity, of the God as described in the Bible. Non-Christians take on, by necessity, the Christian worldview implicitly in order to live in the world created by the Christian God, but they refuse to confess that worldview is the truth. They live by one rule and confess another.
2) The issue at hand is not whether Pat Robertson is hypocritical or not. The issue is that he is a false prophet, as documented many times over. The Old Testament prescribed that the people of God refuse to listen to a false prophet, even if he were to prophesy ONE time. Why should I listen to one now? If God uses a man as His mouthpiece, how is it possible that he should speak error when claiming to speak for Him?
3) This petition has no binding authority, but it is a request from other believers in Jesus. By making all sorts of stupid statements, particularly in regards to false prophecies (which is the only issue this petition speaks to), and by doing so as a highly recognisable and public "evangelical spokesman", he is accountable to a more stringent standard. There are other men in a similar limelight; why don't they make such ridiculous statements as he?

Dear Pat. Be silent.

A petition to Pat Robertson.

Very nice. I've been saying it for years myself, but the guy is such a publicity hound I really doubt he'll listen to anything, even if it were signed by 10 million people. Perhaps if his 100 biggest financial supporters said it, he would...

Mad props to the Boise State Broncos

Boise St. 43, OU 42.

They clearly wanted it more, they came out hot and weathered a comeback and came up w/ GUTSY play-calling at the end.
I am an OU fan but I couldn't help but think that I hated to see Boise St. go down given their situation and the way they played in the Fiesta Bowl. And to pull out a hook-and-lateral and then a Statue of Liberty on the two biggest plays of the game... that's really something.

Congratulations from an OU fan who's disappointed. But you guys deserved to win it. May the BCS suffer further well-deserved wounds b/c of you!

I AM A FATHER!

Welcome to the world, Nadia Elauren. May the words of the Scriptures that were whispered to you mere moments after your arrival here ring in your ears throughout your lifetime and be the cry of your heart at the moment of your death.

I shouldn't smirk...

But I did.

The love of the brethren

Had a pretty Merry Christmas. Hope you did too.
Mostly relaxed for like 4 days straight. Slept in. Took naps. Received an espresso maker from my parents (thanks so much!) and made like 6 mixed drinks in the span of 60 hours. Mmmm.

Yes, for me, espresso drinks = mixed drinks. Keep your martini, I'll have a macchiato.

And then on Christmas Day, we called tomorrow in Japan and talked to the pastor who arranged for us to be hosted for 4 days and nights among his congregation in Okinawa last Christmas. And he remembered us!
And then we talked to the family who had us over for Christmas dinner and hosted us one night and they told us they and their kids missed us over Christmas, asked about us, wished aloud that we could be there. And that they pray for us every night in their bedtime prayers.
That is AWESOME. I've been floored often over the last 16 months at the fervency of love that believers can display for the brethren. And we've so often been on the receiving end of that, even among people we've never met before. It's been great and I am thankful to have been reminded of it so recently.

Snipings of an apostate

Recently Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries linked to a blog by the name of Crossed The Tiber, an apostate from the faith to Roman Catholicism.
I went on over there and took a look at this post in which the Tiber Jumper (his own self-appellation) compares Sola Scriptura to the Islamic doctrine of the Qur'an (which is a bogus and wrongheaded comparison and reveals that the Jumper understands little about the Islamic doctrine of the Qur'an). Dr. White mentioned that he might get some time the following week (which he did here) to respond, but I thought I'd take a look at the Tiber Jumper's blog and personal conversion story.
I left two comments, actually, and then tried a third a little later.
Then the Tiber Jumper emailed me to explain why he refused to post my comments - apparently he had "tired" of the debate and didn't want to debate the issue anymore.
Just as an example, one of the comments had been in response to his bringing up the Canon of Scripture as an argument against Sola Scriptura. I asked the "White Question": If an infallible Magisterium is necessary to produce the Canon of the NT, how did a pious Jewish man living in 50 BC know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were inspired Scripture?

The question is an impossible one for the Roman Catholic, and the Tiber Jumper didn't even want to give it a shot. Instead, he canceled the posting of my comment but continued to allow more comments from others, which took 1 of 2 forms:
1) Other RCs writing to support him
2) Other Protestants offering no argument but just sniping or saying little of substance

So, why did the Tiber Jumper disallow my comments on that article and also on this one?
I responded to his email. Here are two excerpts:

And now you refuse even to POST my comment w/ a very relevant question. It is relevant b/c one of the arguments that you raised against SS is the question of the Canon. You claim that an infallible *human* authority is necessary to establish the extent of the Canon. Yet the question reveals that the pious Jewish believer living in 50 BC knew the extent of the Canon *without* an infallible Magisterium. It is an important point against your position - if he knew the OT Canon w/o one, what makes one necessary for me today? And you didn't want to post it b/c you were afraid of some kind of attack in return? If that is the case, why even bring up things like that at all? Why even have a blog such as you have? Why call it Crossed the Tiber? Why not "Roman Catholic Thoughts" and restrict your posts to Roman Catholic subjects, staying away from polemics altogether?

And...

In closing, I don't buy your stated reasons for demurring. I don't necessarily believe you are lying to me, but you are certainly inconsistent, and that is a shame.
I don't think you are "evil", any more than any other heterodox person out there. I think you are an apostate, and that is more of a shame. I don't bear you any ill will at all but rather the best will, that you would return to the faith of Jesus Christ and His apostles.

You are welcome here, Tiber Jumper. I won't delete your comments.

An Evangelical reacts...

...to Franky Schaeffer and Eastern Orthodoxy.
It's not a bad read and does a pretty good job of encapsulating concerns over conversion.

On Mark Driscoll and Misogyny

To get the context...

Read this.
Then this.
Then this.
Then this.
If you have time, read this too. But don't hurt yourself...

To Rose (from the 3rd "Then this."),

I live in Oklahoma, not Washington State. I have never gone to any church in the Pacific Northwest. Yet I am compelled to write, because out of so many things that are wrong in the Evangelical church today, it is bizarre to read a criticism like this.
Though I have little idea about your motives and won't speculate, it is sad to see Pastor Driscoll attacked in this way and for this reason. It's funny that I get the impression that he is seen as nearly an 'arch-conservative' among many in the combox on your post and at JesusCreed, yet I can assure you that he is not the most conservative of evangelicals out there. There is among many an ongoing discussion and a wait-and-see attitude as to whether he will place himself in his preaching and actions into the “Emerging” category. Such is the vagueness of this classification and the wariness that exists between conservatives and Emergents that much is still unclear, as you can very possibly attest. However, most of the attention Pastor Driscoll receives on that count centers around the language he uses from the pulpit and the way he relates to much of his congregation (ie, is he friendly and making the Gospel seem more relevant? Or is he compromising the Gospel’s integrity by being “cool”?).

All that to say that it is interesting to see him taken to task for being “too conservative”. I read through his posts and was nodding my head at their level-headedness, having found much to commend them. In particular, his 12 bullet points about practical steps for pastoral accountability were quite well-spoken, and ring of lessons learned, thankfully not the hard way. And after having had young women throw themselves at him as he describes, I can see why! Pastor Driscoll shows discernment when he says, “Death comes to every Christian leader who goes to Jesus and Scripture for purely functional and not relational purposes.” That statement seems, to my mind, to reflect a sentiment that would be right up your alley!

Moving to the center of the issue, where you deal with gender roles, you say, “I believe the Egalitarian view of gender roles as closer to the intent of what Scripture teaches.” That is the linchpin of this issue. Having checked thru Grace Driscoll’s article to which you refer w/o linking to it, I saw a fair amount of exegesis and an awful lot of Scripture cited. In your article, I saw an allusion to Galatians 3:28 and a vague allusion to Genesis 3. Perhaps you did not intend to defend your position with Scripture here, but I should think that such a defense would not be out of place at all. You have taken your own personal and denominational traditions (which I estimate to be heavily influenced by many post-modern elements in Western society) and have called Pastor Driscoll to the dock for not hopping to it to get w/ the program! Let Scripture speak; shall we not follow Jesus' explicit example?

A point-by-point discussion might be helpful here:

Remember, I believe in an Egalitarian view of gender roles.

But you have yet to justify it Scripturally. I would be interested in seeing that fleshed out in a post soon. I’ll be watching for it, especially b/c I have never seen a convincing justification of your position.

You teach that women like me are out of God’s intended roles for women in the church and home

This would have been an ideal place to point out HOW he was wrong to teach that.

if the church allows women in ministry then homosexuals in ministry would be the next logical conclusion

History has borne that out. And it makes sense – you wish to muddy the waters of gender distinction that the Bible sets out clearly. Once they are invisible, what’s to stop the next steps?

This is not only offensive to me, it is demeaning of my personhood.

Where do you find Pastor Driscoll demeaning your personhood? Is that not defined by God in His Word? Do you believe that Pastor Driscoll believes you to be less of a person than he himself is? What can you cite to prove that?

I would consider myself a daughter of my Father in heaven rather than a daughter of Eve, as per your wife’s article.

Are you not both? (This would have been a good place to deal exegetically with the Apostle Paul’s discussions of relevant subject matter in Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2.)

Women will be saved by going back to the role that God has chosen for them.

Again, an opportune moment to exegete 1 Timothy 2:15:
“But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

how unchristian this statement is.

This is one of my big problems here. You are taking Pastor Driscoll to task over this, but to do it, you have to sit in judgment over the Apostle Paul and the God-breathed Scriptures. It is amazing.

It seems you hold the opinion that if I don’t follow the role that you think God has chosen for me, a role that you find favorable because of the theological lens you see through, then I am not saved.

And then you radically overreact. Where did he say that you are not saved? Do you not agree that it is entirely different to accuse someone of being wrong on this subject (which you are) than to accuse him/her of not being a true believer in Christ (which you may be, I have no idea)?

Can’t you see how even posting that women have motives such as this — my husband is a pastor so he is trapped into fidelity so I can sit back and let myself go — is offensive?

What evidence could you cite to shoot down his anecdotal citation of personal experience? Absent that, you are simply naive; are not women sinners too?

In the second post, you sound patronizing and demeaning of Gayle Haggard calling her “lovely and devoted.”

I’d say “patronizing and demeaning” is in the eye of the beholder. What would you prefer he say? “Ted Haggard’s rather plain and hopefully more or less faithful wife, Gayle…”

It did not seem to matter if Gayle Haggard was the most beautiful, devoted woman, and with her husband the most sexually active woman on the planet

You are right there, but even this point strikes me differently than the way you are using it. Much of this article leaves me thinking that you are just looking for a fight.

So for you make this statement in these terms and make it an issue of sexual impropriety, failure, and sin, in my opinion, simply misses the point.

To make “it” an issue of that? I have to say, I don’t see where you get that. I hope, for the sake of the church members under you, that you are better at exegeting the Scriptures than you are at exegeting Pastor Driscoll’s statements.

You have continually used your power to demean people with derogatory terms such as “limp wristed, and chickified”

Too much slang, I’ll give you that. These are quite insensitive. I don’t quite follow your outrage over “limp-wristed,” but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

the PAF group do not identify as a Christian group and don’t seem to be attempting to operate under the constraints of any particular religious guidelines

I strongly question your choice to use non-Christian sources to criticize a Christian over Christian doctrine. How well can an unbeliever understand this and what could s/he contribute of value?

I find it necessary…to speak out…on this present controversy because it is affecting the local body of believers who I am called to serve.

Then deal w/ it from the Scriptures within your church.
Since you cannot, however, it does not surprise me that you lash out. Perhaps you hope to distract from the fundamental problem you have – you have no biblical warrant for what you are doing. The best defense is a good offense?

the demeaning way you name-call women

I haven’t seen a single instance of him calling names. Yet you have called Driscoll a “misogynist” w/o any evidence that I can see. That is hypocrisy, and it is unwelcome.

There is enough injury inflicted from our enemy without leaders of the flock adding to the amount of injury.

Indeed.


I note also this reference:

good Christians may disagree without using unchristian and uncharitable words when they differ. I would call your attention to the debates between N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg...


Rose, if you believe Marcus Borg to be a Christian, your view of what that is is in serious jeopardy. This is but a symptom of the wider problem in evidence in your letter.

So, to sum up, you are calling Pastor Driscoll to apologise for concluding out of Scriptural exegesis (performed by his own wife!) that women are different from men and have different roles in life. You decline to present any compelling biblical reason for someone to believe you are in the right rather than him. You refuse to object to, and indeed tacitly support, a protest against this man for what he’s said IN HIS OWN CHURCH about a theological issue of lesser importance. You gloss over the total lack of Scriptural support for your position and refer to a rank heretic as “good Christian”. You call names while criticizing the calling of names. I don’t know anyone in this conflict and yet it is abundantly clear who is in the wrong. There is still time for you to prevent the situation from getting worse and your guilt for your sin from growing heavier. Not saying you are not a Christian. I am saying you are in the wrong.

I close with words from Grace Driscoll: “These ideas are only antiquated because our culture has labeled them as such. But we find favor in the eyes of our Lord when we seek His good and perfect will. ‘Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised’ (Prov. 31:30).”

Peace and grace to repentance to you,
ALAN


P.S. to any reader - Please note the very loving and non-judgmental attitudes at the Emergent Jesus Creed post combox, particularly in comments #13, and #14 and very particularly in #18 (from a "Christian lesbian," no less, someone who should be most inclined among us to be tolerant and peaceful!).

A real gem

From JP Holding's response to Sam Harris on his "Letter to a Christian Nation":

And finally, we get to see you at work with Biblical "exegesis". I use the word loosely because it is apparent from your use of the Bible that to you "exegesis" means "putting an X on a picture of Jesus".

That is funny.

Seen on TV

A big banner held by some soldiers:

HALP US JON CARRY - WE R STUK HEAR N IRAK