Yearly Archives: 2008

An Exercise In Futility

November 20, 2008

Time for some venting, sorry if you were expecting something deep today. :-)

I truly believe that communication is a lost art. Either that, or I’ve been transported to a parallel universe where up is down and left is right.

I refer to several recent experiences in message boards or blog comment threads. In one, on the topic of the pre-trib Rapture, I expressed my strong objection to people spreading a lie about the pre-trib view: that it began with Darby or someone named Macdonald in the middle ages. Yet the next person told me how egotistical it was of me to claim the pre-trib view was the only right view (!?!?). So I posted in reply that no, that wasn’t what I said at all, I only objected to the false charge that we don’t get our view from the Bible but from visions and allegedly misguided teachers. Yet even more people jumped on my back, flaming me for saying what I never said, insisting that I was claiming the pre-trib view was the only view!

I cannot fathom what causes people to continually ignore the plain meaning of words.

In another venue, I kept seeing false statements made on another topic of controversy. I started a thread on why people who hold this particular view were not the kind of people everyone said they were. But in page after page of responses, every one of them ignored the topic and instead posted diatribes against the view itself. It was supposed to be about the people who hold it, and since I started the thread I certainly knew what my own topic was. But they are still going on and on raging against the view and not addressing the issue of the people who hold the view.

What’s the use of telling people anything? Why do they go on burning straw men, even after you tell them point blank that they’re doing it? How can there be civilized discussions that benefit anyone when people can’t follow a line of thought, or that seem to have no other goal but to bash whoever doesn’t agree with them?

Thanks for listening.

Posted in: The World – 2 Comments

Loyal or Loose - 21 Questions

November 17, 2008

This is in response to yet another piece from the infamous “True Woman” conference, a check sheet PDF called “Wild or Wise - 21 Questions“. (See also my earlier response to their Manifesto Here.) I didn’t repeat the actual check box lines (never, seldom, occasionally, etc.), since I’m not interested in grading papers. ;-)

And once again, my goal in this is not to mock the original but to replace it with the real issue: what is Christian behavior and what is not? This is not a gender thing but a believer thing, but the control freaks just don’t get it.

This questionnaire is for all believers.

  1. Are you preoccupied with appearances? Are you more concerned about impressing others than developing godly character?
  2. Do you wear clothes that bring attention to you and your flesh, whether the style conveys sexuality, power, or rebellion?
  3. Do you dress like gangsters, perverts, or bums?
  4. Are you seductive to the opposite sex? Do you show off for them in a way that dishonors God?
  5. Is your life more about snaring a popular mate and less about being the kind of person someone else would want to be with for a lifetime? Is your career a greater concern than your spiritual maturity?
  6. Are you judging others by how well they play society’s “roles”, by whether they step out of your personal preferences?
  7. Do you go looking for trouble, or put yourself in compromising situations?
  8. Do you try to lay traps for people? Do you rationalize lying or cheating?
  9. Do you use flattery or deceptive speech in order to get ahead of others?
  10. Do you demand others bend to your personal preferences or consider such preferences to be on a par with scripture? Is your view the only view you tolerate?
  11. Do you demand your own way? Do you badger, threaten, or use guilt as a weapon against others?
  12. Are you rebellious? Do you demand your own way and even call it God’s way? Do you “kick against the goads” when God calls you to service? Do you refuse to follow God out of fear of society?
  13. Do you denigrate those who step out of the roles to which you have tried to assigned them? Do you hide behind tradition or majority will?
  14. Do you worship another human being or consider them between you and Christ?
  15. Are you distracted with thoughts of conquest, lust, control, or manipulation?
  16. Do you physically or mentally dishonor God with rebellion, “beating your fellow servants”, sexual sin, or any other “idol” such as sports, career, or power?
  17. Do you in any way seek to punish someone if they refuse to obey your wishes, or even if they merely question you? Do you wield power over someone else and use it to get your way?
  18. Do you feed your mind with worldly values such as power, control, being served instead of serving, or claiming superiority by virtue of the flesh or societal privilege?
  19. Have you had many broken relationships due to shallowness or poor judgment of character? Do you view others as mere stepping stones, or demand loyalty from them while showing them none?
  20. Do you bash, mock, belittle, coerce, slander, or otherwise act in an un-Christian way toward those who are weaker than you or who simply disagree with you? Can anyone outside your circle of fellow believers tell by your behavior that you are a Christian?
  21. Do you make up check lists to instill guilt in others in order to force their compliance with your wishes?

While I’d certainly have asked other questions if I were trying to make a check list from scratch, these are written so as to counter the very loaded, anti-female questions of the original list. All believers, not just some, are to have basic Christian behavior and strive toward spiritual maturity. I realize this came from a conference aimed at women, but it still must be pointed out that no such equivalent burdens are ever placed upon men. Their conferences and “tests” always have to do with what are really just Christian standards, not male standards: leadership, responsibility, decision making, morality, deep Bible study, etc. The ones for women are biased away from those qualities and toward subservience to males.

Posted in: Christian Living – 2 Comments

Choosing Our Battles

November 14, 2008

We Christians are easily sidetracked. Any pet doctrine can become the focal point of our lives and take our eyes off what’s really important. We all know we’re supposed to spread the gospel everywhere, to live to please God, but we get wrapped up in any number of side issues which frequently turn out to only be divisive. So we need to have some questions to ask ourselves as a kind of checkup.

  1. Does this issue affect the gospel message?
  2. Does it motivate me to be more Christlike?
  3. Does it affect the way I interact with others?
  4. Does it drive people away from God? (beyond the inherent offense of the Cross)
  5. Does it deepen my understanding of the scriptures?
  6. Does it cause me to break fellowship with other believers?

Those are just a few. And the answers may depend upon various other factors. But the point is that we need to take a hard look at some of the issues that keep us divided and distracted: predestination, eternal security, baptism, the so-called sign gifts, etc.

Now I’ve heard many charges against various views, such that one group calls another group’s view dangerous or compromising with evil. But in most cases the charges turn out to be false or exaggerated. For example, eternal security is said to give people a “license to sin”, yet there is no discernible difference between how people who take that view live and those who don’t. Both groups wind up sinning and repenting; the only difference is whether they were theoretically lost and resaved, or in and out of fellowship. Or Calvinism: as long as we all spread the gospel to all, and observing that neither Calvinists nor non-Calvinists live demonstrably better lives as a result of their views, what’s all the flaming about? (Of course, this teaching has been known to drive people from the gospel, but in most cases Calvinists never tell anyone about their views until a person is saved.)

There is value in debate; don’t get me wrong. It can drive us deeper into the scriptures and make us re-examine some beliefs that may not be accurate. But such debates should never consume us or define us. It is surely a sign of spiritual immaturity to divide over many of the issues we think are so vital. Whatever else we do, we must keep our focus on the Prize.

Posted in: Apologetics, Calvinism, Christian Living, Salvation – 11 Comments

Entitled

November 5, 2008

Conservatives are scratching their heads and wondering what went wrong, but the answer is not to just regroup or take back the media. No, the roots go much deeper. Our nation is filled with the “entitled”, with people who think they all deserve big houses, fast cars, no laws they don’t personally like, and endless government handouts.

How did it come to this? Easy. Generations of attrition, beginning with the anti-American takeover of our country’s colleges. God was marginalized and finally expelled. Morality was made relative, feelings ruled principles, and peace was to be had at any price, no matter how high.

We did not riot when Roe v Wade made murder for convenience legal.

We did not rebel when the 10 Commandments were stricken from public view.

We swallowed every twisted psychological experiment upon our children.

We kept electing those who promised the most government largesse.

We foolishly believed that even if our enemies took over, the same laws that allowed it would then work in our favor to overturn it.

In short, we did not act but only watched and whined as one pillar after another was knocked down. We allowed the hearts and minds of our people to be swayed by many siren songs, lulled to sleep so the wolves could roam freely among us. Nobody cares now what our principles are; the only law they recognize is that of force. And last time I checked, conservatives do not have a standing army at their command.

The question is, how badly do you want it back? And if your plan is to talk and reason and evangelize, you will wind up wasting your time, because reason was never in the equation. This was a war of worldviews, wherein the enemy uses tactics they know we’d never use. You don’t talk to people like that, you defeat them.

Tolerance is the weapon that defeated America. If you’ll give one inch you’ll give a thousand, one at a time, and now we’ve reached the thousand. I expect in the coming months to see sites like mine shut down. I expect the Christian voice to be forced underground, as is already being done in places like Canada. The Brave New World Order just got supercharged, so hang on to your faith and your integrity, two commodities that just became scarce.

Posted in: Other, Prophecy, The World – 10 Comments

Trinity Debate Assessment, Part 5

October 28, 2008

Under “5. Final Comments”, Affirmative

Again the assertion is repeated that since the Bible uses names for God like Father and Son, then it must indicate a hierarchal relationship. And again they insist that permanent subordination does not mean inferiority of being. And yet again, they insist that without hierarchy of roles there is no way to distinguish the Persons of the Trinity. The examples given to claim support for equality of being with inequality of role are fundamentally different from their view of the Trinity. Human authority relationships that are not based upon a person’s essence cannot be compared with those that are. The only possible illustrations that would match would be prejudice on the basis of race, sex, or social class, which make the people underlings for life on the basis of intrinsic qualities of being. And again, they completely ignore the Spirit in this.

Under “5. Final Comments”, Negative

If the Son is subordinate to the Father, then they cannot share an identical essence. The Persons can be differentiated simply because they exist; no hierarchy or roles are needed for this. The fact that the Father says “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” speaks clearly of the incarnation and not a role from eternity past.

My Conclusion

Without knowing the names of the debaters for the Affirmative, one could easily mistake them for apologists for the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other aberrant groups that also see everything, even within the Godhead, in terms of hierarchy and authority. They use the same arguments. Our inability to fully grasp the concept of the Trinity should at least temper the rhetoric of those who insist upon dissecting it. I see no practical difference between a chain of command in the Trinity and that of three levels of deity, or even three gods. This attempt to probe the inner workings of the Godhead has given birth to many cults and been fodder for many critics of Christianity. But there is no danger in teaching that the Persons are all fully equal and fully divine.

And if we were to use the same tactics as the Affirmative in questioning motive, we could easily ask them exactly why this hierarchal view of the Persons of the Trinity is so vital to them. What is the practical necessity of this belief? Truth to tell, there is one sinister motivation: the subordination of women to men. If they can prove that Jesus can be permanently subordinated to the Father’s will while still being equal in essence, then they can claim that women can be made subordinate to men without saying women are inferior in essence.

Yet even then their plan fails, because the relationships between men and women are never, ever compared to that between the Father and the Son. It’s not even remotely implied. Jesus modeled the father/son relationship for all believers; all are to follow him in laying privilege aside to stoop down and help the weak. “Not so among you” is a command for men as well as women. The humility and service of Jesus in his incarnation gives no exceptions to anyone.

Passages that speak of Christ being the head of the church speak of unity of flesh, and the analogy of bride and groom is to represent that between the church and Christ. It is a joining, a picture of unity and sacrificial love. And that is the model for married couples. A man is to leave his parents to join to his wife, just as Christ left his Father to join to his Bride. It is specifically the love of Christ for his Bride that the husband is charged with emulating, never the authority of Christ as God.

So all of this is a wasted effort on the part of the Affirmative, and it is destructive to many believers as well as to our unique view of God. It does much damage for no other purpose than to justify male supremacy. It is a shameful display of pride in the flesh.

Posted in: Apologetics, Bible Text, Nature of God – 11 Comments

Trinity Debate Assessment, Part 4

October 28, 2008

Under “3. Rebuttals”, Affirmative

The affirmative asserts that although incarnational events don’t necessarily equate to eternal truths about Jesus’ divinity, they still insist that the relationships among the Persons are not presuppositions but have scriptural support. Then a personal attack is made, wherein the motivations of the Negative are called into question. Next an appeal is made to the fact that many things are held to be true in spite of the fact that they have to be inferred. Yet all of the inferences they have made have been philosophical presuppositions without any direct scriptural support (e.g. the sender outranks the sent, the terms Father and Son must be terms of hierarchy).

Finally, they use the tu coque fallacy which basically amounts to “So you think we’re promoting a heretical view of God? Well, that’s nothing compared to your heresy!” Specifically, they claim that they are (falsely) accused of believing Jesus is a lesser God, but that it is much worse to promote an idea they think resembles Modalism. But this charge of Modalism is completely false because the Negative states clearly that there is One God in three Persons. The Affirmative does indeed have to choose between Jesus being made a lesser God and their self-contradictory claim that permanent subordination is compatible with equality of being.

Under “3. Rebuttals”, Negative

The Negative is fully justified in calling the charge of Modalism a cheap shot. (I loved the little addition, “If not a cheap shot, a moderately priced one”!) They point out that scripture does not support the claim that only the Father has authority over creation, and even if it did, it really does nothing to prove that the Father has always had, or will always have, authority over the Son. Then they make the additional point that if relationships can change, then they are not necessary relations.

Under “4. Follow-up”, Affirmative

The affirmative repeats its assertion that if God reveals himself as Father and Son (again the Spirit is ignored in this), that the Negative’s claim of non-necessary hierarchy is a denial of what God has said about himself. Of course this is a false charge; they never denied that God uses terms like Father and Son about himself. And in spite of the fact that the Negative believes in God in three Persons, they repeat the charge of Modalism by asking quite sarcastically what the differences are between the three Persons. They then claim victory due to their “massive support” from scripture. Lastly, they accuse the Negative of misunderstanding a book written by the Affirmative on the Trinity, along with another appeal to “church fathers”.

Under “4. Follow-up”, Negative

Since the Affirmative keeps trying to use “church fathers” as authoritative sources, the Negative points out that not all of them are unified in support of the Affirmative view. Then they challenge the Affirmative to address the meaning of subordination. Phil. 2:5-11 is then presented as proof that Jesus had given up his authority and equality with the Father in the incarnation. One has to have possessed something in order to give it up.

Regardless of what anyone intended to say (which is an argument typically offered when one cannot answer a challenge on what they actually said), it remains that saying Jesus was subordinate to the Spirit during the incarnation yet that the Spirit is also eternally subordinate to the Son is contradictory.

The final post in this series is up next, and it will cover the final comments and conclusion.

Posted in: Apologetics, Bible Text, Nature of God – No Comments
« Older posts