Responding To Five Arguments About Arsenokoites…

Watch Your Life and Doctrine Closely...

When it comes to rebuttal against all the various attacks against the Biblical teaching on issues related to gender, sexual morality and marriage, there is no shortage of Christian responses.  Folks like Drs. Robert Gagnon, Michael Brown, James White, Albert Mohler, etc. have provided the Christians with no shortage of scholarly and popular level apologetic work against the onslaught that is coming against the Bible from the “Christian” QUILTBAG mafia.

In reality though, the type of rhetoric that one runs into on Facebook is pretty simplistic; it’s not the stuff that Gagnon and Brown are responding too.  Those guys are writing stuff that engages the arguments from writings like James Brownson’s book Bible, Gender, Sexuality.

Brownson

Though many of the popular arguments come from guys like Brownson, not a whole lot of people you’ll be talking to will have actually read guys like Brownson.  In the internet game of telephone…

View original post 2,037 more words

Covid crazy

I agree the numbers are tricky, of course a personal loss is sorrowful. But for the 99.9% of people in the US who will be unaffected by this the numbers do mean something, it’s not about a lack of compassion. It’s about the fact that an entire way of life has been changed economically and psychologically, and not for the better. Corona really changed nothing, we could always die from an microbe at any point.

Sweden will seemingly be the test case, where they did not shut down their way of life and we’ll see if herd immunity has a good effect. The fact is, this needs to be a local decision, where individual cities, counties and states determine whether the seeming cure outweighs the disease.

And it’s also a personal decision, I have no problem with anyone who wants to stay home, wear masks, and keep themselves safe. Those who are susceptible should be safe. But what are they saving themselves for? If businesses and economies suffer and general freedoms and privileges are waylaid then what life do we have at the end of this?

The 99 do not and should not suffer for the 1. In Jesus’ parable of the good shepherd, he temporarily leaves the 99 for the sake of the 1, but not at the expense of the 99.

By all accounts this disease seems to be harmful to those who would only have 5 years of life left. It affects the elderly and those with health problems. The fact that entire portions of populations can have the virus WITH NO SYMPTOMS shows that this is beyond the pale.

We’ll certainly learn from this and be wiser. But so far what has been learned is that global gov’ts and nations are entirely incompetent to handle something like this, and the status quo is that personal responsibility falls prey to gov’t oversight, even in America.

What should have happened is that travel from China should have stopped in January, as it was I believe 90,000 people came to the US from China in January and February. So perhaps we’ll learn as Christians theologically that God has appointed nations and gov’ts as protectors of their boundaries, and the reality is when the world tries to act like a global village everyone suffers. Nations have their appointed boundaries so we will all look to God and not think that if humans came together and built a strong tower we could solve all our problems. Genesis 11 and Acts 17

Sacrifice as an archetype

Christianity extends the Jewish concept of a need for sacrifice which can cover sins–an idea that sin is certainly grievous. Sinning against others moves us towards death: theft, lying, adultery, disloyalty–these are all actions which are contradictory to life and well-being.

And the Jewish concept that sin can be atoned (covered) by blood recognizes that actions of sin are actions towards death. Thus death cancels death.

So these are archetypes where the term primitive might be better termed primary.  The need to atone for actions of death is still a primary idea. Only by making sacrifices is healthy life achieved. Healthy relationships, bodies and minds come from being exclusive, sacrificing lesser good for greater good.

Dear John

A great (and lengthy) letter for anyone interested in true salvation

I pray for all you who come into read.  That somehow this may penetrate with someone, for it came from my heart, from my experiences over the years, and from a very personal place. A Plea to Consid…

Source: Dear John

Aspects of faith

I’d say that perseverance of the saints isn’t guaranteed, since sanctification is synergistic. So the Arminian is correct that not all persevere–which is clearly seen biblically. And the Calvinist is correct that salvation cannot be lost–which is also clear biblically.

What is not clear biblically, and the point of contention, is that salvation necessitates perseverance. In fact it does not. We believe and are saved, we persevere and are rewarded.

Blasted assurance, I lost it again
I’ve been forsaken because of my sins.
Jesus has left me I could not sustain.
Now I’ll believe cause I want it again

Since sola fide is a distinct part of Reformed theology, at times RTs are very affirmative of salvation by grace through faith. But the doctrine of perseverance of the saints can have three responses. There is the Christian who hears what they say and actually hears free grace and understands the simple message even though they don’t understand all the nuances. They are satisfied that their faith works, thus they are saved.

There are also the others who hear the Lordship Salvation message inherent in Perseverance of the Saints and become saved and aren’t too introspective and actually become satisfied with what seems like quasi-assurance, a mix of objective and subjective assurance.

Then there is the third group, and these are the people who recognize the confusion of perseverance of the saints. How does it not obfuscate simple faith and works? Beliefs influence behavior, but faith is not a work. Better to see faith as the response to the truth, the persuasion that something is true. These people recognize the crystal clear message of the water of life expressed by Free Grace theologians.

Those in the first category usually agree with Free Grace but don’t see what the big deal is. Those in the second usually become antagonistic to Free Grace theology (with more Reformed education). And those in the third category love God’s simple message of Free Grace and wonder why there are people confusing the issue.

Balancing Theology

Between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will
Between Charisma and Catechism
Between Patriarchy and Feminism
Between Objective and Subjective
Between Elder rule and Congregational rule
Between Salvation and Discipleship
Between Heart and Head
Between Grace and Holiness

This doesn’t mean lukewarm. This means hot and cold. Both are useful at different times, and somehow we have to mix both without being lukewarm.

THE BIBLICAL GOD: THE PRECONDITION OF INTELLIGIBILITY (Repost)

Geisler goes over much of this extensively in his Systematic Theology. Wonderful stuff.

DR. RELUCTANT

This (re)post is a “stand-alone.” But I think it is rather important in its own way.  I apologize for the formatting.

“When the Christian sets forth his outlook he will stress the kind of God to whom he is committed, the nature of the world in relation to God, and the nature of man as God’s creature. The Christian God is totally self-sufficient, and in Him there is an equal ultimacy of unity and diversity (being Triune). Everything outside of Him derives its existence, character, meaning, and purpose in light of Him and His sovereign counsel.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, 16.

Logic/Reason…..precondition ……. God who is immaterial perfect rationality

Morality…………..precondition ……..God who is righteous

Truth……………….precondition ……..God who is unchanging Truth

Uniformity……….precondition ……..God who upholds regularity (providence)

Order………………..precondition ……..God who imprints His order on creation

Subject-Object

View original post 191 more words

Consider the avian and the flora

In what ways can looking at the bird and the lily help us to not worry? How can Jesus assert this? Kierkegaard asserts that man’s ability to worry innately affirms that humanity touches both the temporal and the eternal. Our ability to care about that which hasn’t occurred or that which might occur distinguishes us from those who aren’t created in the image of God, i.e. the bird and the plant. So how is it that looking at the bird and the plant help us not to worry?

What would we say to the bird worrying in the tree rather than actively working and finding his food? Only when the bird works does he live. So too the human. Would not we mock the bird who worries? And yet as Jesus says in Matthew 6 God provides for the birds, and humans are worth much more than birds.

And does the lily ever worry about its ability to photosythesize? They do not move, but they take the sunlight and water provided and build nutrients and energy, yet the wildflowers destiny is to be beautiful for a short time, and destined to be fire kindling a short time after that. And are we not destined for much more?

So the bird and the lily can teach us something. Each day worries enough for itself, we should, like the bird, work daily and expect daily provision from the God who has given the body and life, and we should, like the lily, bloom beautifully for the short time that we have. Worry takes away from today’s energy which should be used for tomorrow’s trouble, not today’s. We cannot add length to our life by worrying, but we can certainly lose time worrying.