A Reasonable Faith

Urgent Prayer Request

2012-01-26T10:24:00.001-07:00

Received via e-mail.

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani never practiced the Muslim faith and converted to Christianity at age 19, becoming a pastor later. But the courts say that since his mother and father were practicing Muslims, he must recant his Christian faith or die. So far, in three court appearances, he has refused to do so - risking execution at any moment. The Iranian Supreme Court often acts quickly in administering the death penalty.
According to a report, when asked by judges to "repent," Youcef replied: "Repent, What should I return to? To the blasphemy that I had before my faith in Christ?"

The judges replied: "To the religion of your ancestors - Islam." To which Yousef replied: "I cannot."

It's time for the body of Christ to act, to pray, to plead for the life of our Brother before Christ so that His servant may be spared.
This is what you are asked/called to do.

The Bible States , "If God is with us, who can stand against us."

Take Care

Philosophy vs Theology

2012-01-20T18:58:00.001-07:00

I want to do a few posts based on my reading of the book, "Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy."

On his opinion of the difference between philosophy and theology:

For him, philosophy was man's search for truth apart from God. It was a type of... "religion," in which man himself tried to reach heaven or truth or God. But theology begins and ends with faith in Christ, who reveals himself to man; apart from such revelation there could be no such thing as truth. Thus the philosopher -- and the theologian who operates on a philosopher's assumptions -- chases his own tail and gazes at his own navel. He cannot break out of that cycle, but God, via revelation, can break in.

Take Care

Alpha Stories, Peace in the Midst of the Storm

2012-01-09T20:13:00.001-07:00

I have asked my Alpha contacts to send me some, "Alpha Stories," some experiences various people have had connected with the Alpha course. Here is one, edited for length and, in the absence of permission to do otherwise, with names and locations deleted.

...I got to work last Friday with a dull ache in my jaw which soon spread to my chest and arms. ...I googled "heart attack" and found my symptoms and made the dicision to call 911.

What I remember about the experience is not so much the pain, but more the shock of giving up control of my body to the paramedics...

At the... hospital emergency room they treated me with nitroglycerin which did not work so they packed my into a second ambulance and away we went again to... (another) hospital. ...as I looked out the rear windows at the sky and clouds passing by, I thought that it is in God's hands now. ...I felt a great peace of mind which I cannot explain except that it must have been the touch of the Holy Spirit. I never once even considered the possibility that I might not make it.

The writer goes on to say that the doctors found the problem and solved it by means of an angioplasty. He then concludes...

When I came to the Alpha course I was a bit of an illiterate Christian. sharing this course with all of you has really helped me find a relationship with Jesus. I am sure that his hand was guiding all of those wonderful people who helped me that day. I truly feel like a miracle has occurred in my life, the way things turned out, and I will thank God every day for His blessing upon me and those I love.

His story brought to my mind the following Scripture,

When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze. For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; (Isaiah 43: 2-3a)

Take Care

Political Correctness - Nothing New

2012-01-09T19:51:00.003-07:00

I heard, I believe on Michael Coren's show, that at a particular school 'holiday' concert, the tune (no words, mind you) of Silent Night was not allowed to be played on a flute because it was too overtly Christian and might offend some people. Is this going too far?

I am reading the book, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Prophet,Martyr, Spy. In a quote from page 175,

One Nazi leader sent the Gestapo a letter complaining that the melody to the hymn, "Jerusalem, Thou City High and Fair" was played at memorial services for the German war dead. There were no offensive words,... but even to evoke the memory of the words was unacceptable. The well known hymn... had been played at German memorial services for many years...

This is the precedent for the kind of liberal thinking that to mention anything even hinting of Christianity might offend someone, and it may be, I fear, the kind of society we could be heading for if these attitudes are carried through to their logical conclusion.

I know it somewhat of a cliche to evoke the spectre of Nazism, but, well, I'm not sayin' ya know. I'm just sayin'.

Take Care

Alpha Stories - For Such a Time as This

2011-12-29T00:09:00.001-07:00

I remember an incident very clearly that happened about ten years ago. It was Sunday, the day after our Alpha weekend away. We always ended our retreat Saturday night, and felt it important to be in church together the next day.

A woman who had come to faith in Christ on the weekend was walking with me after the service up the side aisle of our church. She was my age at the time. (Well, I suppose she would still be my age now, wouldn't she?) In any case, her eyes were full of tears; the tears that only the Holy Spirit can bring; tears of joy of the knowledge of God, of sin forgiven and at the beauty of a brand new relationship with the God you had no concept of so short a time before. And at the same time, tears of grief; grief at the realization of the price paid by the one you now recognize as your Saviour for your redemption.
And she was saying, "John, I feel my entire life to this point has been a waste."

I answered, "No, your entire life up to now has been in preparation for this very moment." I am reminded of the verse in Esther where her uncle Mordecai tells Esther,

And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)

God has not wasted anything. God can redeem your entire life to the moment of salvation and use it for His glory.

I was listening to Charles Price on Living Truth, and he was teaching on much the same theme. He used the example of Saul, who became known as the Apostle Paul. Paul describes his life before coming to know Christ in his own words:

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. (Acts 22:3a)
...circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.(Philippians 3:5-6)

I'm sure God had His eye on Saul, as he grew, and leaarned the Scriptures inside an out. It was no mistake, accident or coincidence that this was the man He would use to argue His cause in the synagogues of various cities on his missionary travels. It was no accident that this man of brilliant intellect would be the one to write such a great portion of what we now know as the New Testament, delineating our Christian doctrine with such clarity. God knew all along what he was going to do, and everything unfolded just as it was meant to do.

Not that Paul was a mere automaton, a puppet with no will of his own. No! But God used his human education, training and background to allow him to elucidate his toughts clearly and forcefully, and God, I believe, had a hand in aligning circumstances or placing him in situations where he could do just that.

Your life before you came to know the Lord was not wasted. It was all in preparation for what He has planned for you from now on. Every experience, every bit of knowledge gained, can now be put to use for His glory.

Starting now.

Take Care

Arguing With Atheists (2)

2011-12-06T11:30:00.003-07:00

On our recent trip to Vegas we stopped in Salt Lake City to see the Mormon Temple Square. It was quite spectacular, to say the least.

But when visitors enter the information centre, they are greeted by a team of two "missionaries" who volunteer to answer any questions, with the end in mind, I supose, to lead one toward the Mormon faith. My "team" were a couple of young girls from the Philipines, so there was a bit of a language barrier. I told them I was what I would call a born again Christian. I didn't just say I was a Christian, because they consider themselves to be Christians as well, hence my differentiation.

Our discussion somehow turned to the nature of God, and I was told that God had flesh and bones, just like we do. I asked where did he come from, who created him, but I think the language barrier made difficult to discuss in any depth. They just kept coming back to the point that the god who created everything was a man just like us. I told them it made no sense and left it there.

I say all that to say this: there is a blog called Darwin Killed God by an atheist who has commented on posts in this blog. And in their discussion and defence of evolution, atheists face the same problem as the Mormons -- they start in the middle. They start with, "stuff" already in existence. As for Mormons, if the creator of stuff is already made of stuff, then he is not the original creator of stuff, is he?

Frankly, I avoid as much as possible discussing evolution with atheists. There is no point in duscussing evolution until one settles the problem of origins. There is no point discussing the origin of species until one settles on the origin of everything. And if one begins with the premise of a Crteaor God, Darwinian evolution becomes, at the very least, unnecessary.

Take Care

Highlights of My Las Vegas Trip

2011-11-26T17:00:00.004-07:00

We went to the Gtrand Canyon, we strolled the strip and Fremont street, saw a woman with about an 8 foot bustline with whom tourists could pose for pictures, went to Verve church, but the highlight for me was this:

This is Carroll Shelby's first Cobra, the first opne he ever built; the original British AC sportscar into which he put a Ford 260 c.i. V8. He has apparently been offered 23 million dollars for it, and turned it down.

For a time in the '80's Shelby went over to work with Chrysler products, following Lee Iacocca. Here is one of his cars, an Omni GLH. I mention this because when I owned my auto detailing company, one of my dealer customers sent me one to clean up. On the way back to the dealership I came up against a Camaro IROC Z-28 at a stoplight. Never having been one to turn away from a stoplight challenge, I blew his doors off. The next light turned red too, but he hung well back, not wanting a homely blue 4 door to embarrass him again.

Take Care

Glee - Worse Than Pornography

2011-11-26T13:38:00.004-07:00

I don't know how many have seen the television show, "Glee." I have had my own thoughts on it for sometime, even intended to do a post on it, but for some reason have never done it.

To express my opinion bluntly, I think Glee is a totally immoral and completely evil thing. It is part of the great cultural movement to sexualize our kids. It is extremely pro-gay, but that deosn't particularly matter. Gay or straight, it portrays, even encourages, sexual activity as a normal lifestyle choice for school children. If that portrayal turns out to be, to its audience, something to be emulated, I'm sure its backers and producers would not see it as a bad thing.

Proponents of such shows are wont to claim that they are just reflecting reality. That may be so, in part, but there can be little doubt that they also accelerate that reality.

My decision to write this was prompted by This blog..., describing a recent episode. As you will read, two young people, virgins, were encouraged, for purely utilitarian reasons, to lose their virginity. That is, to give away something they can never recover, something that should have been reserved as a gift for the person with whom they intended to spend the rest of their lives.

I entitled this post as I did because when one encounters outright pornography, one is aware of what one is is seeing. But the glitz, the music, and the seemingly attractive teenage lifestyle in "Glee" is an effective hook to suck in an innocent and naive audience, then indoctrinate them into a very evil agenda. That may seem over the top, but I'm telling you, that's the way it is.

Take Care

Edited to add...

Somewhat tied to this, in my opinion, is This piece from the Anglican Journal decrying the slow progress on child poverty in Canada.

Well, I've said it before, and it is frustrating when those who continually whine about what the government should do to alleviate it, but child poverty is far and away a moral problem. That is, one of it's main causes is a breakdown of morality. The argument is undeniable that a huge cause of child poverty is single parenthood, specifically single motherhood. And how do girls become single mothers? There's only one way; by having sex. And I am confident that many are lured into this activity by societal attitudes epitomied by shows such as "Glee."

And please don't whine about the need for more birth control education. We were taught birth control in the sixties, and the focus on it has surely grown since then. It's not a lack of information on birth control; it's a surfeit of propaganda for sex itself.

check out Matthew 18:6

Notes on Forgiveness

2011-11-24T20:32:00.002-07:00

Excerpted from, "Seven Keys to Spiritual renewal" by Steve Arterburn

1. Forgiveness ins't condoning the behaviour. To forgive isn't saying, "What you did is okay." It's saying, "The consequences of your behaviour belong to God, not to me." When you forgive, you transfer the person from your own system of justice to God's. To forgive is to recognize that the wrong done against you is a debt of sin, and all sin is against God. Therefore, in forgiving, you transfer the debt from your ledger of accounts to God's, leaving all recompense in His hands.

2. Forgiveness isn't forgetting what happened. It would be foolish to erase from our minds some of the wrongs done to us. If you did, you'd never learn from your experiences and would relive the same situations, and consequently, disappointments. What can eventually be forgotten are the raw emotions associated with the event... When you forgive, the terrible memories and feelings gradually diminish.

3. forgiveness isn't restoring trust. Trust is earned. to blindly trust someone who has hurt you is naive and irresponsible. If a person is a theif, it's foolish to give him a key to your house. If he's a pedophile, you'd be derelict to hire him as a babysitter. Forgiving a wrong does not mean extending to the person an invitation to sin again.

4. Forgiveness isn't synonymous with reconciliation. It is a necessary step toward reconciliation, but there are situations where reconciliation is not a good idea. If the other person is unwilling to reconcile due to bitterness or denial, you can still forgive. (But) it is unwise, if not dangerous, to seek reconciliation when the other person is unrepentent, unchanging or unwilling.

In Judaism, forgiveness isn't required unless repentence is demonstrated and pardon is sought. But Jesus raised the standard, commanding that we forgive unconditionally. Forgiveness is a choice. Forgiveness means to consciously and deliberately cancel a debt. Choosing to forgive is a personal, conscious and powerful choice of the will. Choosing to release the offender from his or her indebtedness is the epitome of being Christ-like.

Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. (Colossians 3:14)

Take Care
Thanks to St Paul's Anglican, Edmonton

Arguing With Atheists

2011-11-09T16:09:00.001-07:00

A recent commenter on this blog has prompted me to post this. I will not link to his site because it is filled with adolescent-level profane rants and, frankly, carries absolutely zero credibility with any thinking person. His favourite weapon of logic is the ad hominem and his primary debating strategy amounts to, "...this is what I say and it's true, so there!" He appeals constantly to the argument from authority, which really is, "... so and so says such and such..." which is supposed to be enough to settle any argument, whether or not any proof or evidence is actually presented.

But it occurred to me that trying to discuss God's Existence with such a confirmed atheist is rather like trying to convince a blind person that blue exists. Or, as I've said before, a slug under a rock on the north shore of Alaska that doesn't believe in New York.

Take Care,

Are Christians Close-Minded

2011-11-08T21:22:00.000-07:00

Fron Greg Koukl at Stand To Reason

Take Care

Building the Kingdom

2011-11-05T22:37:00.002-06:00

Something I'm learning, and need to take to heart;

Fundraising is first of all, a form of ministry. It is a way of announcing your vision, and inviting other people into your vision with the resources that are available to them. -- Henri Nouwen

Take Care

Good Advice

2011-10-29T21:39:00.000-06:00

"Every heresy is due to an overemphasis on some truth, without allowing other truths to qualify and balance it" John R.W. Stott in 'Between Two Worlds,' p 183

Take Care

Heresies - Nothing New Under the Sun

2011-10-27T22:51:00.001-06:00

With a resolution at the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta synod wishing to recognize that,

"...Pelagius’s contribution to our theological tradition is shrouded in the political ambition of his theological antagonists who sought to discredit what they felt was a threat to the empire, and their ecclesiastical dominance..."

Stand firm has re-posted an examination of five historic heresies that are re-surfacing in that denomination.

Lest we gloat, I am sure that some Canadian denominations are not far behind. Be on guard.

Take Care

Such Hypocrisy

2011-10-25T10:58:00.000-06:00

From the Same link as the post below,

...U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Britain's new defense secretary, Philip Hammond, said a full investigation into Gadhafi's death is necessary.

Hammond said the Libyan revolutionaries' image had been "a little bit stained" by Gadhafi's death, Hammond adding that the new government "will want to get to the bottom of it in a way that rebuilds and cleanses that reputation."
"It's certainly not the way we do things," Hammond told BBC television...

After bombing the crap out of the country, targeting Gadhafi specifically with bombs, drones and missiles, these self-righteous politicos are whining because someone put a bullet in his head.

What silliness. And taxpayers actually pay these people!

Pardon the rant, but
Take Care

Told You so

2011-10-24T18:11:00.002-06:00

Libyan Leader Declares Nation Islamic, Sharia Law to be Implemented
From Here

Abdul-Jalil said new banks would be set up to follow the Islamic banking system, which bans charging interest as a practice deemed usury.

He also announced the annulment of an existing family law that limits the number of wives Libyan can take, contradicting the provision in the Muslim holy book, the Quran, that allows men up to four wives.

But, as I posted in a previous post,

Is what replaces the status quo going to be better or worse than that which is being replaced? What is going to fill these vaccuums, freedom or increased tyranny and repression? More tolerance for the rights of minorities or less?

In other words, what will be the fate of religious minorities in Libya, especially Christians? Once again, I guess we'll see, won't we?

Take Care

Trusting in the Promises

2011-10-22T13:59:00.003-06:00

It is quite fashionable in come circles to insist that all those who have never heard of Jesus are beyond hope; that they will spend eternity in the fires of hell. I heard Adrian Rogers insist so on the radio the other day.

I have attempted to expand on my position in this matter in other posts. but one more thing occurred to me. The standard question raised in response to this position is, "What about the people in the Old Testament?" And the standard response is something like, "They were saved because they believed in the promises of a coming Messiah."

Well, OK. But when were these promises given? The answer is that the first promise was given in Genesis; in chapter 3; specifically in verse 15;

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush[b] your head, and you will strike his heel.”

This is often considered the first promise of a messiah who would come and put things right for the human race.

So who to whom was this promise given? To the first human couple; the first parents, if you like, of humanity. The pair from whom all humanity descended.

It follows, therefore, that all of humanity descended from them have been given this promise. The Bible is the record of only one stream of this humanity. It records nothing of those who came to live in the Americas before Columbus; in Europe or Asia or Africa, parallel to, but not recorded in, the biblical record.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not discounting the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Without that, no one could be saved. Nor do I discount the need for faith. Those who reject God do so at their own peril and to their own destruction.

But all of those not mentioned in the Bible; all those living in other parallel civilizations, had the same two first parents. So could they not all been privy the same promise? And could not those who trusted in that same promise be considered by God as He considered Noah, for instance? Or Enoch? Or even Abel or Seth? Or any other of the so-called Old Testament saints?

Well, why not?

Take Care

Dr. Lloyd-Jones on the Altar Call

2011-10-20T21:23:00.003-06:00

From Here...

I have never called people forward at the end for this reason; there is a grave danger of people coming forward before they are ready to come forward. We do believe in the work of the Spirit, that He convicts and converts, and He will do His work. There is a danger in bringing people to a "birth," as it were, before they are ready for it.

I can sum it up by putting it like this: I feel that this pressure which is put upon people to come forward in decision ultimately is due to a lack of faith in the work and operation of the Holy Spirit. We are to preach the Word, and if we do it properly, there will be a call to a decision that comes in the message, and then we leave it to the Spirit to act upon people. And of course He does. Some may come immediately at the close of the service to see the minister. I think there should always be an indication that the minister will be glad to see anybody who wants to put questions to him or wants further help. But that is a very different thing from putting pressure upon people to come forward. I feel it is wrong to put pressure directly on the will. The order in Scripture seems to be this - the truth is presented to the mind, which moves the heart, and that in turn moves the will. - Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones

There is a difference between an altar call and an invitation. I believe that every sermon where there are unbelievers in the audience should contain an invitation; an invitation that urges the seeking listener to surrender his life to Christ, and an explanation of the means by which God has made a relationship with Himself possible through him.

But then let that invitation rest on the heart of the hearer. The surrender will take place according to the will of God and the timetable of the Spirit.

Take Care

This is a Hoot

2011-10-18T20:37:00.001-06:00

Laurel and Hardy Dance to Santana

Thanks to Dave Groff

Take Care

"Men of Athens... (Street Evangelism?)

2011-10-17T18:57:00.002-06:00

Paul said,

Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO AN UNKNOWN GOD
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 22b-31)

from Here...

Pastor Darren Young of the Langley Evangelical Free Church gives some excellent thoughts on this section of scripture as it may apply to today. The whole thing is fairly long, but the section I'm posting on runs from about 1:50 to about 12:50.

Basically, his point is that Paul's discussions in the Areopagus in Athens do not exactly translate into any attempt on our parts to engage people in the marketplace, the workplace or on the street today. Mars Hill, where Paul's dissertation took place, was the place to go for the exchange of ideas in philosophy and religion. The same kind of place does not exist, for the most part, in the public square today.

In other words, if you tried to stand up on a busy street corner today and give the same message, you might be ignored, you might be heckled, you might be assaulted, you might even be arrested for disturbing the peace. As Pastor Young says, if you stood up on your desk at work and announced you were going to tell your co-workers about Jesus, it probably would not go well for you. Even a less conspicouos attempt to discuss your faith with others is met with an air of indifference or opposition.

But what if there were a place that was open to discussing matters of faith freely? A place where discussion was welcomed; where no question was ridiculed; yet a place where Jesus could be proclaimed boldly to those interested in hearing? In fact, a place where people come specifically to hear?

There is such a place! It is called Alpha. And for a person anxious to see people come to a realization of the truth of The Christian faith, it is the best forum I have ever known for just that puropse.

Yes, I am biased, but my new position with Alpha Canada is merely a next and natural step in my relationship with this remarkable outreach tool. Lord willing, it will enable me to encourage Alpha's expanded presence in our Province and even our nation.

Take Care

There is Only One Certainty

2011-10-10T11:40:00.004-06:00

From Here

Re: "Scientists have announced the discovery of a particle that can travel faster than light."

The implications of such a discovery are so mind boggling, however, that these same scientists immediately requested that other labs around the world try to replicate the experiment. Something must have been wrong to account for a result that, if we know anything about the universe, is impossible.

And that’s the problem. It has to be impossible because, if not, everything we know about the universe is wrong.

Ah.... the arrogance of Dawkins, the new atheists and their gullible followers. The arrogance of all who think that the natural is all there is. Who have made science their god; the god that has all answers. We have only to look at history to see that everything changes, even when those present thought they had grasped certainty.

There is only one certainty;

Do you not know? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak.
Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall;
but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
they will run and not grow weary,
they will walk and not be faint. (Isaiah 40:28-31)

Thanks to David

Pray Without Ceasing

2011-10-09T09:29:00.002-06:00

“We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all God’s people— the faith and love that spring from the hope stored up for you in heaven and about which you have already heard in the true message of the gospel that has come to you.” (Colossians 1: 3-6a)

It is interesting to note that Paul is praying here for those he hasn't yet met. He has only heard of their faith. He hasn’t met them yet. In Alpha we pray. We pray for people we haven’t met yet, but we know that God knows them, and has plans for them, and whoever and wherever they are, they will be joining us as God’s children, our brothers and sisters, in God’s kingdom. Prayer is a big part of each Alpha course. And it is a priority at Alpha Canada. We pray for the people presenting all our courses and we pray for all those who are taking them.

Paul says in Phil 4:6,

"Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God."

Notice that thanksgiving comes even before our petitions are presented, let alone answered. We are to pray with confidence that God will answer, according to His will. At the beginning, and all through each Alpha course, we have prayed with thanksgiving, thankful for what God intends to do in this course, and confident that He is going to accomplish great things. And he always does. I can say with confidence that each and every course in which I have been involved, almost without exception, lives have been changed, hearts have been touched, and people have surrendered their lives to Christ.

Take Care

An Announcement

2011-10-01T12:14:00.007-06:00

I have been accepted as the Associate Regional Director for Alberta for Alpha Canada. Alpha has been very close to my heart for a number of years, and I am pleased and honoured that God has brought me to this position. My official title is Associate Director because I am transitioning into it from my current full time position with Raven Truck Accessories, one of the best companies anywhere to work for, by the way. (I'd like to give them a shout-out because Richard, the President, has been very accomodating in enabling me to take on my new Alpha duties, as well as remain on staff with Raven.) Although my official title is, "Associate Director," there is no, "Regional Director," so... I guess I'm it anyway. What can I say?

The Alpha Course is, in my opinion, just about the best tool, program, (call it what you will) for reaching out to those who do not yet know Christ, as well as helping to educate, edify, and bring into closer relationships, those already in the Body of Christ.

Here is a video of an interview with Nicky Gumbel, the man who, more than anyone else over the last 20 years, has helped grow Alpha into the international phenomenon that it is today. I hope you will watch it all.

My new position, by the way, is self-funded. In other words I will need the financial support of friends and others who have a desire to see new people brought into the Kingdom of God. Anyone who might like to contribute may click to the left where it says, "Support Alpha in Alberta."
Small monthly contributions would be wonderful. Large monthly contributions would be even more wondedrful :>) Any help would be very much appreciated.

In any event, please keep me in your prayers as I endeavor to follow the LORD's will and serve him as faithfully as I can in this new capacity.

Take Care,
John Kivell

WTG SPY! (Way to Go St Paul's Youth)

2011-09-29T19:46:00.004-06:00

A nice story involving our young people from St Paul's Edmonton;
From The Anglican Planet...

ON MAY 15, the town of Slave Lake, 200 kilometres north-east of Edmonton, was struck by devastating wildfires. One-third of the homes and businesses were destroyed.

St Paul's VBS usually welcomes a team each summer from Crosstalk Ministry, which is based in Montreal. Students travel across Canada during the summer months to facilitate Christian day camps. Crosstalk had already booked one of its two-member traveling teams to run a one week VBS day camp in the Edmonton parish of St. Paul’s, but on short notice they and a team from St Paul's did two more weeks in Slave Lake. By all accounts it was a true blessing to all concerned.

When they heard of the need in Slave Lake David Dolmat and Emma Goettke offered to continue traveling to the struggling town. Since about 150 kids were interested in attending VBS, Slave Lake opted to host two one-week camps. St. Paul’s also offered to send two teams of its youth leaders to assist, including newlyweds Lauren and Adrian VanderHout. Lauren told the Messenger:
“While Slave Lake welcomed the idea of a facilitated day camp, the community worried it would not have enough volunteers. My co-worker, Noelle Byer, and I were asked if we would gather a youth team to come with us. We arrived in Slave Lake with nowhere to stay, but ready to ‘do’ day camp.

Quite a bunch, our kids. Well done.

Take Care

Anyone Remember This?

2011-09-24T13:54:00.019-06:00

My wife tries to tell me she wanted us to go to Woodstock back when it happened, but she says I didn't want to go. I don't remember that, but I can well remember a number of "little Woodstocks" presented aroung Southern Ontario after the movie came out and it was hip to be associated with it, however tenuously.
Guys would get on the public address system and try to sound like the announcer at Woodstock (Chip Munk, I think it was) just to hear the sound of their voices. Looking back, it all seems rather funny.

At any rate, this number includes what may arguably be the best drum solo in rock history, beginning around 2:50 and lasting a full two minutes.

Those were the, "good old days," but I've become a new person since, and I sure wouldn't want to go back.

Take Care

Alzheimer's and Faithfulness

2011-09-19T22:25:00.000-06:00

From Here...

[Last] week on his television show Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said a man would be morally justified to divorce his wife with Alzheimer’s disease in order to marry another woman. The dementia-riddled wife is, Robertson said, “not there” anymore. This is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Marriage, the Scripture tells us, is an icon of something deeper, more ancient, more mysterious. The marriage union is a sign, the Apostle Paul announces, of the mystery of Christ and his church (Eph. 5). The husband, then, is to love his wife “as Christ loved the church” (Eph. 5:25).

At the arrest of Christ, his Bride, the church, forgot who she was, and denied who he was. He didn’t divorce her. He didn’t leave.

There is probably some support for someone whose spouse is, "not really there" seeking other companionship. Certainly there is sympathy, and that sympathy itself is not wrong. And just as in other areas of sexuality, there is the selfish view that one's personal 'needs' outweigh what is right or wrong. It's as if we are justified in including a, "but" after every vow.

Is a person justified in leaving a spouse who has Alzheimer's? I guess it depends on how seriously you take your promises.

Take Care

h/t themcj

Greg Koukl on the Historicity of the Gospels

2011-09-08T14:41:00.001-06:00

Clearly and succinctly put.

Obvious when you think about it, but a common objection from those who haven't thought things fully through.

Koukl's very helpful site, Stand to Reason, is Here...

A number of short answers to various apologetic questions is Here...

Take Care

Chaz Bono on "Dancing With TheStars"

2011-09-06T21:20:00.003-06:00

From Here..., among other places.

The news that Chaz Bono, born the daughter of Sonny and Cher Bono, but since transgendered to a man has ignited a firestorm of criticism, as well as support for the move. What should be the Christian response to this story.

Well, I'm sure there are many different responses, including the call from some Christian groups to boycott the show, but I will try here to give you mine.

First of all, I don't really care for the show in the first place. My daughters grew up in the world of dance, and my oldest still teaches it. But we are both in agreement on the faact that the recently popular dance shows on television, not only DWTS but , "So You Think You Can Dance" (both American, but especially Canadian) have overly sexualized dance. Every hip-hop number, for instance, seems to include an obligatory simulated sex act. Even the ballroom dancing on DWTS has deteriorated to a focus on the more erogenous areas of the anatomy, especially the female. So I don't think the show is the best television fare for Christians to be watching anyway, especially Christian families.

But what about Chaz? I believe there are only two kinds of people in the world; the saved and the unsaved. As Christians, we need to be focused on witnessing to the unsaved, not judging them; not putting them off or pushing them away. Without passing judgment on Chaz' status, if he is not yet a Christian, we need to pray that he might somehow become one. When anyone does then become a Christian, the past no longer matters, as far as his standing with God is concerned. He is a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come. It is not our business to be judging anyone who has not yet come to faith in Christ. It is our business to see, LORD willing, that they do.

I think 1 Corinthians 6 applies here.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NIV, emphasis mine, JK)

Some of the Corinthians Christians, indeed some of us today, were once the type of people Paul condemns as wicked, but they and we were washed, justified and sanctified by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. If Chaz Bono were to come to Christ, he would come as he is, what ever he is. Now you may have differing opinions as to what he is, or should be, but he will come as a new creation. The old will have gone and never be counted against him.

A person with tattoos all over his body, for instance, if he becomes a Christian, will still have tattoos all over his body. He may not, as a Christian, have done this; we may believe that a Christian should not have excessive tattoos, or any, for that matter, but that is irrelevant. That person is now no less a Christian than we.

Chaz Bono, along with every other person who does not (if indeed he does not), is someone who needs to know Jesus Christ. I believe it's as simple as that.

Take Care

Election and the Sovereignty of God

2011-09-01T22:21:00.001-06:00

The sovereignty of God does not need to be established. As an essential aspect of His being and person, it is in no way contingent. The sovereignty of God does not depend, for either its existence or its manifestation, on either the fact or the mode of election. God is sovereign, regardless of whether He elects, or does not elect... whether He elects some, or all... whether election is conditional or unconditional. Neither the fact of election nor the mode of election nor the extent of election affects the fact of (His) sovereignty..., and the assumption that unconditional particular election is necessary for the preservation of (His) sovereignty... is a theological humbug which for generations has been used by Calvinists to beg the question. (Shank; Elect in the Son, p144)

AsI have argued before, just because God can do something, does not mean He is obligated to do it. Just because He could have designated particular individuals for salvation in eternity past (and therefore by corollary, all other particular individuals for damnation without recourse) doesn't mean He did it. Just because He is sovereign over all things, doesn't mean He must exercise that sovereignty.

He could very easily have instructed all people everywhere to seek Him, and then rewarded those who did. And of course, that is exactly what He did (Hebrews 11:6).

He could have promised that all who seek Him with all their hearts would find Him. And that also is what He did.

He could have promised that all who ask will receive, all who seek will find, and to all who knock, the door will be opened. And again, well, ...you know

He could have promised the Holy Spirit, the mark and the agent of regeneration, to anyone who asks Him. And, well I could go on.

Those who insist that because God can do something, He must do it, actually diminish His sovereignty, don't they?

Take Care

Politically Incorrect Commercial

2011-08-17T09:26:00.002-06:00

Sorry to post this after a serious one, but variety is the name of the game.

I don't suppose if it were a man there would be any problem with it.

Take Care

Was The Cross Unnecessary?

2011-08-14T17:39:00.003-06:00

I have argued before about the logical extension of hyper Calvinism. In fact, I'm afraid that the type of Calvinism that most of those who would call themselves Calvinists, if the logical extension of their view be examined, would be what even they derisively call, "hyper-Calvinism." This Calvinism is that which includes the view of election that holds that God, before the foundation of the world, chose particular individuals for salvation and other particular individuals to unconditional and irreversible individual reprobation and therefore damnation. I will call it, "John Piper calvinism," not out of any disrespect for the man (he is a man whose teachings I admire in other areas and hold in high regard), but because John Piper is often one to whom many Calvininsts point as an example of its proponents.

But the logical extension of even this type of Calvinism, if examined in all honesty, is that evangelism is, at the end of the day, unneccessary. Now, most Calvinists would deny this of course, attributing such an idea to hyper-Calvinism, but that is without thinking the matter through. Because if they are honest, that is exactly where their own position leads. If God has pre-chosen all who are to be saved, as well as all who will perish, and God's immutable purposes cannot be thwarted, then it matters not whether these, "elect" are evangelized, or by whom; they will be saved -- period! It may be argued that God uses means. But then it must be admitted that God also then must ordain the means, leading to a kind of complete and controlling determinism. Either that, or God is at the whim of someone who chooses or chooses not to obey the great commission. In other words, I may say, "I don't feel like speaking to that person (one of the elect, let's say) about Christ." Which then would force God to say, "Well then, guess I'll just have to use someone else."

In any case, if God has preselected His chosen, it can be argued that it doesn't matter whether we evangelize or not; the elect will be saved no matter what.

All that is to say that I am now reading a book by Robert Shank, "Elect in the Son." Although I may not agree with all he says, I found that he puts my view of election quite well. In fact, I discovered a name for it; "Corporate election." It holds that it is Christ who is elect )

“Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:1 NKJV)

and that we who are saved were chosen, "in him" (from that great predestination passage in Ephesians 1), and we are his, "body."
In other words, it is the body that is elect, and saved individuals only by virtue of being included in it.

But evangelism is not the only thing made unnecessary by unconditional particular election. So, ultimately is the cross, is it not? If God has decreed, unconditionally and immutably in eternity past, those who will be saved, then the cross becomes a mere symbol of a decision already made. Shank writes,

Calvin's reference (folowing Augustine) to Christ as, "the mirror of election" has been construed by some as indicativeof his concept of the role of Christ in election as being merelyt reflect what God already had accomplished in eternity by His decree. Thus Christ's "redemptive" career -- the incarnation, His death and resurrection, His ascension and intercession -- are seen as incidental and symbolic, divine pageantry rather than authentic saving acts. Election becomes predicated on God's decree in eternity in abstractio from all occurrences in time in the experience of Jesus. (p32)

To push the point further, either there can be no truly unconditional election, because salvation, and therefore election, is conditional on the cross, or the cross becomes irrelevant, ineffectual and merely symbolic.

When it comes right down to it, though, I believe that every passage on election in the Bible can be read and understood in the light of the concept of corporate election. It is not necessary to consign, or have God consign, anyone to hell without any hope of redemption or access to appeal.

Take Care

Oh Wait... This Is Our Own Country We're Destroying!

2011-08-10T19:13:00.005-06:00

A couple of interesting perspectives on the current stupidity being demonstrated in the riots in Great Britain.

From Malcolm Muggeridge, via Here...

...whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself...
...blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, laboured with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.

And from Here...

The ferocious criminality exhibited by an uncomfortably large section of the English population during the current riots has not surprised me in the least.
To have spotted it required no great perspicacity...
...rather, it took a peculiar cowardly blindness, one regularly displayed by the British intelligentsia and political class, not to see it and not to realize its significance. There is nothing that an intellectual less likes to change than his mind, or a politician his policy.

A population thinks (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class) that it is entitled to a high standard of consumption, irrespective of its personal efforts; and therefore it regards the fact that it does not receive that high standard, by comparison with the rest of society, as a sign of injustice. It believes itself deprived (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class), even though each member of it has received an education costing $80,000, toward which neither he nor—quite likely—any member of his family has made much of a contribution; indeed, he may well have lived his entire life at others’ expense, such that every mouthful of food he has ever eaten, every shirt he has ever worn, every television he has ever watched, has been provided by others. Even if he were to recognize this, he would not be grateful, for dependency does not promote gratitude.

The picture I have of these types of people is of someone out in the middle of a lake in a wooden boat. They have a handgun with them, and as they are seated in the boat, they angle the gun downward and commence shooting holes in the bottom of the boat. They seem either to be unaware of the consequences of their actions, or they are quite conscious of them and do them anyway. In any case, they endanger not only themselves, but everyone in the boat with them.

Take Care

Gems From Chesterton

2011-07-30T22:36:00.001-06:00

From Here...

■“There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions.”

■“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”

■“The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.”

■“Great truths can only be forgotten and can never be falsified.”

■“All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive.”

■“What we call emancipation is always and of necessity simply the free choice of the soul between one set of limitations and another.”

■“The decay of society is praised by artists as the decay of a corpse is praised by worms.”

■“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.”

The Last Rung?

2011-07-30T14:43:00.002-06:00

"The emerging church is not an evangelistic strategy. It is the last rung for evangelicals falling off the ladder into liberalism or unbelief."

A response to a review of Rob Bell's book, "Love Wins," from Here...

He (Bell)really does sound like a Unitarian pastor who thinks religion is a set of nice stories, all fictional but having literature's insights into human life (so contradictions are beside the point). People make their own hells or heavens, all purely natural, and eternal life is just a metaphor for the eternity of the present moment. God is a useful fiction, and we shouldn't disturb each other's fictions unless they cause people to behave badly, but there is never any actual supernatural intervention. And if somebody's stories cause them to start doing things that don't have useful consequences in this life--if they start fasting too much, or feeling too guilty, or making real-world decisions based on God's existence--then those are bad stories. Jesus is a good story too, because it is a story of love and sacrifice, and Jesus has saved many people by being the protagonist in a story that has caused such good. But not only is there is no substitutionary atonement, it does not even matter whether Jesus really existed or not--it is the story that matters, not any facts that might underlie the story.

Well said, I think.

Take Care

How He Loves Us

2011-07-27T22:26:00.003-06:00

NDP Would Trample Gays' Rights

2011-07-25T19:22:00.010-06:00

LifeSiteNews reports that the New Democratic Party, now Canada’s official Opposition, has passed a resolution at its party convention calling for the removal of charitable status from “ex-gay” organizations.

"Ex-gay" organizations such as Exodus International and the Zacchaeus Fellowship exist because there are certain gays who wish to avail themselves of their services. The NDP Party would apparently deny these people their right to do this.

A post on the blog, Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays includes this:

...even one ex-gay proves that homosexual behavior is not innate or immutable, the gay lobby’s fear of their former members results in false claims and attacks aimed at preventing homosexuals from exercising their right to self-determination. They cannot bear to have even one homosexual leave homosexuality...
I know because I am ex-gay myself. I suffer more harassment as a former homosexual than I ever did as an out and proud homosexual. The ex-gay community includes thousands of former homosexuals like myself who benefited from counseling. We did not choose our homosexual feelings, but we did exercise our right to seek help to change those feelings.

Contrary to the myths being generated by outraged homosexuals, counseling for unwanted same-sex attractions is not prohibited by any medical association. Unhappy homosexuals are not children in need of parental permission and can freely choose their own therapeutic treatment just like anyone else.

The delight with which the gay community greets this news can be seen Here... This demonstrates the kind of almost cultish possessiveness that seeks to lock its members in, even against their will, and goes to great lengths to prevent them from leaving. It is a way of thinking that is not only controlling but even sinister.

And it shows how far the new, "rights" agenda has gone. It is not enough merely to recognize a certain group's rights; it is now no longer an individual's right even to disagree with them.

Freedom was a wonderful thing, while we still had it.

Take Care
h/t ANiC July 23 Newsletter

More Dishonesty From Rob Bell

2011-07-18T20:36:00.001-06:00

In his chapter on Hell, Bell, as is his style throughout the whole book, doesn't really give a straight answer, but seems to go out of his way to say that there is no hell as we have understood it; that is, a place of punishment for the wicked after death. I'm not quite sure what his point actually is, but he takes the Greek word, "gehenna," which is translated as "hell" in the Gospels, and seems to trivialize it. He points out, quite rightly, that it refers to the Valley of Hinnom outside of Jerusalem, but says, in one of the silliest quips ever,

So the next time someone asks you if you believe in an actual hell, you can always say, "Yes, I do believe that my garbage goes somewhere."

I'm guessing (because as far as I can tell, he never does say) that he is trying to dispel the notion of a place of punishment for the wicked after death, whether eternal or not, pushing the notion that hell is something we create for ourselves in the here and now.

But in our gospel reading this past Sunday, we read Matthew 13, where, in both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30; 37-43) and of the net (47-50) Jesus speaks very clearly about the punishment of the wicked in, "...the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Once again, Bell seems to quote only those verses he can twist to suit his point of view, while ignoring those he can't, all the while, I assume, hoping his audience will not exmine his arguments too closely.

Take Care

Rob Bell; Love Wins; Credibility Suffers

2011-07-12T22:32:00.002-06:00

Rob Bell is either naive, or intellectually stilted, having never progressed beyond an adolescent level, or completely dishonest. I can't tell which. In chapter 1 of his book, "Love Wins," he poses a number of what I can only assume he considers to be clever rhetorical questions. I assume he thinks these questions will have some point to their asking. These questions all relate to how one may be saved. After listing a number of scriptural examples, he asks, (I will place his scripture references beside each question.)

"Is it what you say that saves you?" (Luke 7; Luke 18; Luke 23) (Bell doesn't give the verses; only the chapter, throughout the whole book. I'm not sure why)
"Is it about being born again?" (John 3)
"or being considered worthy?" (Luke 20)
"Is it... who we forgive?" (Matthew 6)
"or whether we do the will of God?" (Mat 7)
"or if we stand firm or not?" (Mat 10)
"or is it what we say we're going to do?" (story of Zacchaeus Luke 19)
"or is it who your friends are or what your friends do?" (Mark 2)

Bell then seems to belittle the Apostle Paul's conversion, quoting Luke's recounting of Paul's recollection of it in Acts 22 rather than Luke's more detailed account of it in Acts 9. I quote from the book.

These questions bring us to one of the first "conversion" stories of the early church. We read in Acts 22 about a man named Saul (later, Paul) who is travelling to the city of Damascus to persecute Christians when he hears a voice ask him, "Why do you persecute me?"
He responds, "who are you, Lord?"
The voice then replies: "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting... Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that you have been assigned to do."
That's his "conversion" experience?

The punctuation and the quotation marks around the word, "conversion" are Bell's own. He then goes on to ask, regarding how one is saved,

"Or is it what questions you're asked?
Or is it what questions you ask in return?
Or is it whether you do what you're told and go into the city?"

He then remarks, referencing James chapter 2 and Luke 7;

"So demons believe,
and washing Jesus's feet with your tears gets your sins forgiven.

There is only one way one is saved; by coming through faith into a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ, being spiritually reborn and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Every example Bell gives in his attempt to confuse the issue is either a fruit , a result or shows evidence of this event and resulting relationship. I can only marvel in incredulity at what must be either Bell's naivety, blindness or disingenuousness in thinking these questions of his actually accomplish valid points.

Take Care

Another Skeptic's Straw Man Addressed

2011-06-24T14:26:00.001-06:00

"The Bible cannot be trusted because the four Gospels were not written by those whose names appear on them."

We often hear this accusation from atheists, skeptics or liberal 'scholars,' (and yes, I include them all in the same category as being equally far from the orthodox Christian faith.) They will claim that these books were originally written anonymously, with the names attached pseudepigraphally (if that is the correct word) at a later date. Now, I freely admit my limited scholarship, but let me give some thoughts on the matter; thoughts that to me make perfect common sense, something that sometimes seems to be lacking in those who attack the Bible just to cast doubts on the Christian fiath.

First of all, so-called religious texts all had names attached to them. Even the false gospels, which were written much later and were true pseudepigrapha, had names; gospels of Peter, Thomas, Mary, etc. So I believe we can be sure that what we know now as the four Gospels would have had names attached to them at the time of writing. If they didn't, then we would have copies or fragments without names, or indeed, with other, varying or different names atached to them. If the names by which we know them now were attached many years later, then others earlier would have referred to various copies by different names, because they would have had to be identified in some way.

It follows, then, that from the earliest times, the Church knew them by their current designations; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The next question then becomes, "Were these men the ones we generally think they are?" In other words, was Matthew written by Matthew the disciple of Jesus? Was Mark written by John Mark of the book of Acts? Was Luke written by Dr Luke and did he also write Acts? And was John (and his three letters and Revelation) written by John, Jesus' beloved disciple?

Was Matthew, for instance, written by the disciple of that name, or some other guy named Matthew? Or was it written by someone who wrote down what he learned from Matthew the disciple? It could still be the Gospel According to Matthew. Does the inspiration of Scripture depend on Matthew writing it down personally? I have no trouble believing that the author was the disciple, but I'm not sure my faith depends on it being so. What is certain, as I said above, the book was surely known by that name, and its authorship accepted, from the very earliest years of church history, as were the others.

The same goes for Mark, but with one further point. If Mark was not the author, but some other anonymous scribe, why attach the name, 'Mark' to it. Mark was a minor player at the time, a follower, so I've heard, of Peter, and someone who, for a time, fell into disgrace in the eyes of the Apostle Paul. An anonymous author would probably have chosen a more famous and glamorous name, such as Peter, or James, or Andrew. Why would he bother with a seeming second stringer like Mark. Again, it is probably known as the Gospel of Mark because Mark actually wrote it, and probably much of it as he learned it from Peter.

Internal evidence indicates that Luke and Acts are the beginning and the continuation of the same story, recorded by Luke from eyewitness testimony and personal experience, and I see no reason to doubt their authorship.

John may be quite a different story, and here is where I may really get into trouble. I am quite prepared to accept that John was not written directly by John himself, but by one of his followers, or students, who either took his dictation, or more probably, recorded his story and teachings. I have heard it claimed, for instance, that the phrase, "the disciple who Jesus loved" is evidence for John's direct authorship, but I think it is better evidence for authorship by one of his devoted followers. It seems to me that for John to refer to himself that way is rather boastful, even narcissistic. But that does not make it any less John's gospel. Also, the entire gospel is written in the third person, except for the switch to the first person in the final verse of the book (21:25). If John, personally, was the author, why the switch? Why not just record the entire book in the first person? The author (or perhaps merely the editor) does acknowledge that the beloved disciple is the one who testifies to these things (the things recorded in the book) and wrote them and that his testimony is true (v 24), but that, in my considered yet totally unprofessional opinion, does not exclude the possibility of a student or follower of the Apostle as the author.

John's three letters, on the other hand, are written in the first person. And fairly obviously with some of the same influence (compare chapter 1 of both the Gospel and the first letter of John), so it is not too difficult for me to accept that John himself wrote the three letters, while someone in his group of followers recorded the Gospel. My thinking would be that the gospel was written some time after the letters.

Finally, Revelation could or could not have been written by the same, "John" as the other books atributed to him. The Bible doesn't specify either way. All we know is that it was recorded by someone named John.

So, my point in this post is not to go all liberal on you. It is to give some thoughts and an answer to someone who might think that by questioning the authorship of these books he has somehow mounted an effective argument against the Christian faith. Bottom line; my question is, "Does any essential part of our faith rest on the actual authorship of the Gospels, or can the term, "according to" mean merely the source of the information?" Whoever might read this and like to comment, I would appreciate any further thoughts.

Take Care

Summer Break

2011-06-21T00:13:00.002-06:00

Temperature 107 degrees. Not Bad.
No, they're not Vegas showgirls I picked up, it's my wife, and daughter #2.
Take Care

Favourite Biblical Phrases

2011-06-09T04:04:00.003-06:00

Sounds like a Jeopardy category, doesn't it?

For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)

"...for such a time as this."
I remember as clearly as if it were yesterday, an incident that happened during one of our Alpha courses. A woman, who happened to be almost exactly my age, coming to faith in Christ. I believe it was on the Alpha weekend retreat. In any event, this was on the Sunday of that weekend, back at church, after service. There may have been just the two of us or we may have been surrounded by people, I don't recall. I just remember the two of us walking up the side aisle, she in tears and saying, "John, I feel my entire life to this point has been a waste."
I said, "No, your entire life to this point has been leading up to this day."
I remember a phrase that I believe was popular back in the '60's, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life." It is almost Christian, but, in the context of coming to faith in Christ, it should read, "Today is the first day of your new life." (cf 2 Corinthians 5:17)

Which brings to mind another verse;

I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation. (2 Corinthians 6:2)

Wherever you are, and whatever your situation, your first day in God's Kingdom is the first day in a new life. It is a day God has known about since before you were born. It may be a surprise to you, but it is not to Him.

Do not try to wish it were any different.

Take Care

BTW, Pastor Terry, if you see this, and notice the time it was posted, you will know that I drank from the wrong pot.

Is Rob Bell's Relationship With God Not Personal?

2011-06-08T22:01:00.011-06:00

In "Love Wins" Rob Bell writes, almost as if he feels he has scored some kind of major coup; as if he has come up with the one unanswerable slam dunk debating point that throws an opponent to the canvas:

The problem, however, is that the phrase "personal relationship" is found nowhere in the Bible.

Nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures, nowhere in the New Testament. Jesus never used the phrase. Paul didn't use it. Nor did Peter, James, or the woman (???) who wrote the letter to the Hebrews.

So if that's it,
if that's the point of it all,
if that's the ticket,
the center,
the one unavoidable reality,
the heart of the Christian faith,
why is it that no one used the phrase until the last
hundred years or so? (Question marks mine, JK)

Well, it brings to mind the fact that the term, "Trinity" is not in the Bible either, but that does not make it any less true. The Trinity is a true fact and a doctrine of the Christian faith, whether it is referred to by name or not. The same goes for a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Whether people in the past have called it that, that is what it is.

Consider the following (and there are many more);

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

...to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:12-13)

...the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15b)

Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” (Galatians 4:6)

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. (Romans 8:14)

The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.(v16)

The relationship sounds personal to me. The relationship between children and their Father is personal, and those who have it, know it.

Take Care

Those Who Haven't Heard? Are There Any?

2011-06-06T23:11:00.012-06:00

Another post on the subject, "What happens to those who haven't heard the gospel," or, "Can God save someone who has'nt heard of Jesus," or, "Is actual conscious faith in Jesus Christ necessary for salvation?" Once again I say, "I don't pretend to know for sure, but I don't rule it out."

Those who insist on the need for conscious faith will sometimes use, as their evidence, these verses;

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? (Romans 10: 14-15a)

Frankly, I believe, taken in context, these are rhetorical questions on Paul's part. As a flippant (and hopefully not an irreverent) example, someone might ask, "How, then, can I get from Toronto to Ottawa if I don't take the 401? And how can I take the 401 if I don't drive a car? And how can I drive a car if I don't have a licence?..." and so on.

Well, the answer is, there are other ways to get from Toronto to Ottawa. One could take alternate highways. One could take the bus. Or one could fly.

Because Paul himself gives the alternative answer to his own questions three verses later, quoting Psalm 19;

But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.” (v 18)

He first asks, "How can they hear?" and then gives the answer, "They have heard, because God has told them in creation." Elsewhere he writes,

This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven.. (Colossians 1:23b)

God has given all the world enough evidence, so that anyone who rejects Him is without excuse (Romans 1:20) No one will be able to stand, on the day of judgement, and say, "Nobody ever told me."

Now, a couple of clarifications:
First, there is no other way to God but through Jesus. Jesus said so himself. The question is not whether the only way a relationship with God is Christ's sacrifice on the cross. That is beyond question. But just how much does a person who turns to God, the God who has made Himself so evident to all, have to know or understand of it. Can God draw someone to Himself without their full knowledge or understanding of the details? (I suppose, in a sense, this applies to all of us. None of us had that full knowledge or understanding. or could even truly believe, until we were given the Holy Spirit, and when that happened, we were already, "in the Kingdom," so to speak.)

Second, this lets no one off the hook. Anyone who rejects God in spite of all the evidence He has given would reject Christ if he was told of him. Anyone who does not believe, in the face of all creation, that God exists, would not believe even if he saw someone rise from the dead.
Third, it does not eliminate the need for evangelism, any more than hyper-Calvinism does. In fact less. Calvinists never seem to realize that the logical extension of their position on election is that, in spite of all they say, evangelism is unnecessary, because the elect will be saved no matter what. Nor am I promoting universalism, or Rob Bellism, which says that all will be saved in the end, which also would eliminate the need for evangelism.

I stated in my opening paragraph that I just don't know for sure. Nor does anyone. So we must carry the gospel of Christ to the whole world, for two reasons.

One, just in case. This whole argument might be wrong.

And two, Jesus told us to.

Take Care

The Story of Jonah

2011-06-05T14:23:00.002-06:00

From an e-mail sent to my wife.

This little girl looks to be about 6 years old and she gives the best narrative of the life of the story of Jonah that I have ever heard and she plays the part of different characters as she tells the story. Great stuff! At first she appears to be reading, but as the narrative progresses it is apparent that she is not. Watch and Enjoy.

The story of Jonah from Corinth Baptist Church on Vimeo.

Take Care

Song Lyrics as Literature

2011-06-05T14:01:00.003-06:00

I was preparing a post critiquing Rob Bell's book, Love Wins. It will need to be a lengthy post, because practically every sentence in it requires a response. But something I did, some slip of the keyboard, erased the entire draft, and try as I might, I cannot recover it. I figure it is either a warning from the Lord or an attack of Satan -- can't figure out which yet.

But the song, "Good Morning Starshine" came on the radio this morning as I was eating breakfast, and I thought I would share some of its most creative lyrics. Steve Allen used to recite popular song lyrics as poetry on his show, so this is my contribution to that tradition.

Why Rob Bell's theological thinking and these lyrics came to be associated with one another in my mind, I cannot tell.

But here they are, from what I gather is the chorus:

Gliddy glup gloopy
Nibby nabby noopy la la la lo lo
Sabby sibby sabba
Nooby abba dabba le le lo lo
Tooby ooby walla nooby abba nabba
Early morning singing song

Pentacostal? I'm not sure.

Take Care

Goodbye Dr Jack

2011-06-03T11:54:00.003-06:00

Too bad you didn't have the courage of your own convictions. You could have made a real statement.

By e-mail from my brother this morning:

Interesting to note that the man responsible for man assisted suicide died a natural death…
What's with that??

You would think that on principle alone he would make his death by assisted suicide regardless of how quickly the end was coming. By doing so his final act would serve to convince others that his way was THE way. He certainly spent enough time during his life time pushing his agenda.
He blew the chance of a lifetime.

His publishers and their marketing people will be looking at this as an opportunity lost!

Curious how much easier it is to pull the trigger on someone else.

Thanks D,

Take Care

He Leads Me Beside Still Waters

2011-05-31T21:38:00.001-06:00

I'm reading a little book recommended by our associate pastor called, "A Shepherd Looks At Psalm 23" by W. Phillip Keller

This quote just leapt out at me:

Saint Augustine of Africa summed it up so well when he wrote, "O God! Thou hast made us for Thyself and our souls are restless, searching, 'til they find their rest in Thee."
All the long and complex history of earth's religions, pagan worship, and human philosophy is bound up with this insatiable thirst for God.

Worth thinking about.

Take Care

Altruistic Squirrels or Gullible Beliefs?

2011-05-31T20:48:00.002-06:00

From here...
Arianna Huffington herself posts an opinion piece which includes this bit on the possible evolution of an, "altruism gene."

...when faced with a predator in the vicinity, some squirrels would cry out to attract the predator's attention, thus sacrificing themselves so that other squirrels would be spared. This behavior would seem to contradict evolution, because such altruism would not be genetically passed on and would thus be selected out. But, as Trinh explained:
'...it is the gene or the genome that is 'trying' to survive, not the individual, nor the species. Thus if a squirrel perishes but in doing so saves his brothers (those who share much of his genome), his genes still survive and are still the fittest. The study offered to the scientific world the evolutionary basis of altruism.'

The first obvious red flag here is the word, "trying." Evolution cannot 'try' to do anything; the theory is that it is a completely random process where mutations that benefit the species are preserved within the species, and animals who possess this successful mutation will flourish while others without it may eventually die out.

Secondly, it would be interesting to hear whether only, "some" squirrels do this, while others more selfishly keep silent. Clarification would be helpful.

Thirdly, it would seem just as reasonable that such crying out may be just a natural reaction of fear in the face of a predator. Dogs bark or growl, cats hiss. People shout out ,"Holy ....(whatever)!" Perhaps squirrels just do what squirrels do.

In any case, one of the commenters posed this seemingly sensible comment:

If there is an altruistic gene, arising by mutation in whatever creature first exhibited the trait, and that creature sacrifices itself for the sake of the species (who do not yet carry this mutation), then the mutation is not passed on. Even though the altruistically mutated creature sacrifices itself to ensure that the genome survives, what survives is the genome without the altruistic mutation. This is not an explanation for how the so-called "altruism trait" has evolved.

To which another, obviously a true believer, answered:

You are assuming there is only one squirrel with that gene. If many or most squirrels have that gene, making yourself the target of a predator will, in fact, enhance the survival of the gene and the species.

Which raises the obvious question (although perhaps not so obvious to who blindly accept what they are told); Do you really think that the same mutation would have occurred simultaneously in more than one squirrel? Or did he miss the plain point of the previous commenter that if this mutation occurred in one squirrel, and that first altruistic squirrel cried out to warn of a predator, and if that one special squirrel was then enjoyed by said predator for dinner, then the genealogy of said mutation would have ended right there and then.

Evolutionarily speaking, altruism would have lived a very short life.

Take care

Love Wins? Rob Bell Doesn't Really Say

2011-05-29T21:26:00.005-06:00

After viewing this program, a debate (more of a discussion) between Rob Bell and Adrian Warnock, I went out and bought Bell's book. I will comment further on the book in a later post. Suffice it to say that I arrived at the title for this post after reading his book, but for now, watch the television program. (It's nearly an hour long, so be prepared.)

Bell seems incapable of giving a straight answer. Either he evades a question entirely, responds with another question, or tries to turn the question back on the asker by asking something like, "Is that what you think?" Even after viewing the entire interview, one may be forgiven for not knowing exactly where he stands.

One point came immediately to mind as I watched it, however. He asks the question, if I recall correctly, "Do you think God would create a situation where there is no way out?" The question is not whether God would create such a situation (or whether indeed He has. Or have we created it by our wilful disobedience and rejection of Him?) but whether indeed there is no way out. In fact there is; that is, to put it in the simplest way possible, to realize that God exists (and I believe the evidence is clear enough for anyone to arrive at that conclusion) and that he rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

More to come on this,

Take Care
h/t The Wartburg Watch

More Church Bulletin Bloopers

2011-05-24T19:38:00.001-06:00

Fasting & Prayer Conference Saturday; includes meals.
The sermon this morning: 'Jesus Walks on the Water.' The sermon tonight: 'Searching for Jesus.'
Ladies, don't forget the rummage sale. It's a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Be sure to bring your husbands.
Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our community. Smile at someone who is hard to love. Say 'Hell' to someone who doesn't care much about you.
Miss Charlene Mason sang 'I will not pass this way again,' giving obvious pleasure to the congregation.
For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs.
Next Thursday there will be tryouts for the choir. They need all the help they can get.
Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the church. So ends a friendship that began in their school days.
A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall. Music will follow..
At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be 'What Is Hell?' Come early and listen to our choir practice.
Eight new choir robes are currently needed due to the addition of several new members and to the deterioration of some older ones.
Scouts are saving aluminum cans, bottles and other items to be recycled. Proceeds will be used to cripple children.
Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased person you want remembered..
The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment and gracious hostility.
Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM - prayer and medication to follow.
The ladies of the Church have cast off clothing of every kind. They may be seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.
This evening at 7 PM there will be a hymn singing in the park across from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.
Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10 AM . All ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B. S. Is done.
The pastor would appreciate it if the ladies of the Congregation would lend him their electric girdles for the pancake breakfast next Sunday.
Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 PM . Please use the back door.
The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare's Hamlet in the Church basement Friday at 7 PM . The congregation is invited to attend this tragedy.
Weight Watchers will meet at 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church. Please use large double door at the side entrance.
The Associate Minister unveiled the church's new campaign slogan last Sunday: 'I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours.

A Little Pink Floyd for May 21, 2011

2011-05-21T11:10:00.001-06:00

Goodbye Cruel World/Is There Anybody Out There

See you tomorrow...
Wherever.

Take Care

The Next Big Issue (So to Speak)

2011-05-20T16:30:00.007-06:00

The Anglican Church of Canada's Sitting-Around-Coming-Up-With-New-Causes-To-Champion Committee has indeed lived up to its name and come up with a wonderful new cause to champion.

Read it here...

...weight discrimination ...now stands on a par with racial discrimination.
Dr. Rebecca Puhl (is) director of research at Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. Her goal is to place weight discrimination and stigmatization squarely on the radar of social justice issues.

Another, "I was born this way; I can't help it" issue, no doubt. Sorry, people of colour, discrimination against you is no worse than against those who eat too much.

The costs of obesity bias in human productivity and quality of life are high, says Puhl.

As high as the costs of obesity itself?

Obesity bias victims and obesity advocates are beginning to challenge the status quo, in some cases successfully, according to Dr. Shaheen Azmi, acting director of the Policy, Education, Monitoring and Outreach Branch of the Ontario Human Rights Commission in Toronto. “Obesity is increasingly being interpreted as a type of disability,” he says. And under provincial and federal rights legislation, disabilities require accommodation.

Of course the HRC would weigh in. It gives them one more, "raison d'etre."

...advocates for the obese have not pushed as forcefully as other advocacy groups such as those of the transgendered. “People do not yet recognize that obesity bias is a social issue.” Fortunately, social justice-minded Canadians may soon change that.

Some of the above quotes are from various advocates, but the last sentence of the last quote is by the author of the Anglican Journal article, indicating, to me, that this is an issue that the Anglican church considers important.

I am not trying to be unsympathetic, especially to anyone who suffers from a condition beyond their control, but this is another symptom in the slow death of this once-great denomination. They have fallen away from what should be their true focus, proclaiming the REAL gospel. They have replaced things of first importance with secondary matters, and will slowly, yet surely, continue to slide into irrelevance as a result.

Take Care

Thankgiving and Faith

2011-05-13T22:34:00.001-06:00

...in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.(Philipians 4:6b)

Thanksgiving is a manifestation of faith and a necessary part of it. In the verse above, notice that we are to present our request to God with thanksgiving. In other words, we are to be thankful as we present them to God; not after they have been granted. We are so to trust God's will that we can expect our prayers to be answered in the way He knows is best. They may not be answered in the way we initially desire, hope, or even expect, but we can pray in thankful expectation that His will is good and pleasing and perfect (Romans 12:2b)

Faith is not presumptiously believing that God will answer each of our demands according to our own narrow will. It is trusting that He will conform our desires to His, and that our prayers will be answered according to His will. It is the confidence that His will is so much bigger and better than ours.

Take Care

Atheist Bus Ads Raptured From Kelowna Vehicles

2011-05-06T22:30:00.006-06:00

So reads the headline on an atheist website regarding this story...

CTV British Columbia - Atheist ads vanish from Kelowna buses - CTV News

It is interesting to see the, "poor persecuted us" reaction from some of the atheist community, and the assumption that this foul act was perpetrated by their arch enemies, those ignorant, imbecilic fundamentalist Christians.

But I am just amused, as I was in the post three down from this one, at the silliness of this ad campaign. It is rather discouraging, to me as an observer of human activity, to think an intelligent person might consider the statement, "There probably is no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life," is anything but a purely ridiculous thing to say. I am surprised that the Centre for Inquiry Canada, the sponsors of the campaign, would think themselves clever for saying it. The so-called, "free thinkers", as they like to be called, show themselves completely ignorant in their apparent belief that a faith in God actually makes the believer miserable or unhappy. I have said before that this new, "pompous atheism," so so set in the certainty of it's assumptions, is directly analogous to a grub under a rock on the north shore of Alaska declaring, "I don't believe in New York!"

Well, I have been on both sides of the fence. They have only been on one, so to avoid embarrassment they would do well not to make such subjective assumptions. I was a non-believer until I was 45 years of age, so not only have I been where they are, I was there long enough, and recently enough, to remember it, and believe me, I would not want to go back. It is like the difference, to make what is perhaps a totally inadequate analogy, between having a 20" black and white television and a 52" LCD flat screen. The person watching the black and white might be perfectly happy with it if they don't know there is anything better.

Besides, saying, "There's probably no god..." is akin to saying, in Russian roulette, "There's probably no bullet in the chamber, so stop worrying and pull the trigger." Or having the girl from the escort service say, "I probably don't have an STD, so stop worrying and enjoy yourself..."

Take Care

"History... Moves on, Taking No Prisoners.”

2011-05-04T11:00:00.005-06:00

When the Lights Go Out: The Death of a Denomination

From Here...

If a church is not passionate about seeing sinners come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, if there is no powerful biblical message from its pulpits, then it is destined for decline and eventual disappearance.

When a church forfeits its doctrinal convictions and then embraces ambiguity and tolerates heresy, it undermines its own credibility and embraces its own destruction.

This applies just as validly to liberal church in Canada, of course. It should serve as a warning, but the irony is that the people who should take the warning will neither heed nor believe it.

Take Care

With God's Help?

2011-05-01T21:39:00.002-06:00

We had baptisms at St Paul's today. 8 of them, with 8 more to come next week.
The Anglican baptism service includes a series of questions to the candidates to which the candidate responds, "I will, with God's help."

Then the congregation stands and the question is posed, "Will you who witness these vows do all in your power to support these persons in their life in Christ?"
The congregation then responds, "I will, with God's help."

The pastor then said to the congregation, "Will you be seated." Without thinking, I blurted, as I was taking my seat, "I will, with God's help."

Sorry, I just couldn't help it.

Take Care

They Should Be Embarrassed

2011-04-24T21:03:00.005-06:00

The atheists who placed this silly ad on busses, that is.

To equate Christ with Zeus and bigfoot is just plain silly. Even most of the ardent skeptics of Christianity do not pretend that Jesus of Nazareth was not an actual historical figure. They may not agree with Christianity's claims, but most agree that he at least existed. And evidence? They just ignore what evidence there is because they cannot, or choose not to, accept it.

But Here..., courtesy of Stand Firm is a very good defence for both Jesus' existence and more specifically his resurrection.

Evidence coming from within the primary witness documents.
In this case, the primary witness documents are the twenty-seven works that make up the corpus that Christianity has traditionally called the New Testament. These works stand or fall individually from an historical standpoint. Therefore, they provide twenty-seven sources of documentation, not one.

I wanted to emphasize this point, because skeptics, and often believers, forget that the Gospel accounts, for example, are four independent and differing accounts of the life of Jesus. Yes, they surely borrowed somewhat from one another, but what historical book doesn't. If one were to embark upon writing a biography of Winston Churchill, for example, would one not both interview living eyewitnesses as well as rely on existing, previously written material? The Bible is not one source; it is compiled of many independent accounts, not originally written as, "The Bible."

Read the whole article. It is very good.

Take Care

Jesus' Piercing Gaze

2011-04-22T19:06:00.005-06:00

During our Good Friday service this passage was read.

Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly. (Luke 22:60-62)

"The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter... And he went outside and wept bitterly."
These words struck me powerfully. I could identify with Peter. It reminded me of the time I surrendered my own life to Christ. The first time you come to know Christ, it is as if he for the first time looks straight into your eyes. The scales have fallen from your own eyes and for the first time you see him face to face; eye to eye. That first gaze causes you to realize the depth of your past sin. You realize how much you have done to hurt him. You realize just how much you have been forgiven. You realize what an enormous debt he died to pay on your behalf. And the tears just come.

Peter wasn't aware of what he had done until Jesus looked straight at him. It was Jesus'gaze that reminded him of his broken promise to his Lord.

And we, when we are convicted of some sin we have committed, is it not, figuratively, just like Jesus looking at us with such a piercing gaze that it is like an arrow to the heart. Whether for the first time or the most recent time, when we realize how we have hurt the One we love, how can we help but, like Peter, weep bitterly.

Take Care

Easter - Resurrection or Pipe Dream?

2011-04-17T16:21:00.015-06:00

From Here...
Someone who labels himself a, "Speaker, thinker, inter-faith activist and spiritual teacher; author 'The Enoch Factor: The Sacred Art of Knowing God,' offers the following;

Soon, millions of Christians will gather to celebrate Easter. For many of them, the literal, not merely metaphorical, resurrection of Jesus -- that is, a bodily resuscitation -- is necessary for any of it to have validity. Is this necessary? Does the resurrection need the resuscitation of Jesus' body to have any transformative significance in the 21st century? It doesn't for me.

Neither, apparently, does the reasoning of the apostle Paul, that if Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain and we are to be pitied above all men. (1 Cor 15:17-19)

Why have I come to believe the resurrection story is more metaphorical than literal? Well, the most obvious reason is, it's more believable. Maybe it's easy for you to live in a mythical, magical world of make-believe (and, if so, so be it), but I cannot.

More believable, perhaps to someone who considers things of the Spirit of God to be foolishness.

...one day, you'll discover for yourself that all the pretending in the world won't keep you from going to the grave. You will die, just as I will die.

I don't think there's a Christian in the world who doubts or denies this. It's about what happens after death...

Now, that does not mean that I have given up believing in something after death. I have not. I can't prove there's life after death. I'm pretty sure no one has proven there is nothing either. For me, I prefer to imagine something goes on beyond this life and that, whatever that something is, it's all good.

The key word here being, "imagine." Our speaker, thinker, inter-faith activist and spiritual teacher has invented his own religion so he can avoid any unpleasant things like repentance, need for forgiveness and a Saviour, accountability to anyone higher than himself, etc.

So this is my daily spiritual practice. And when I do this, I've discovered a kind of resurrection all it's own -- a resurrection within my attitudes, my actions, as well as my sense of inner peace.

Again, an empty spirituality. It is interesting that he believes in a spiritual, i.e. non- physical reality, but somehow a physical resurrection is too unbelievable.

And this is precisely the second reason why the Easter story need not be literal to have transformative power. My own experience gives witness to this. For example, when I tried to believe the things I was told to believe and that questioning my beliefs was a sign of weakness and lack of faith...

His, 'beliefs' were obviously not real beliefs, because he obviously didn't believe them. They were merely things he had been told, but he was not particularly attached to them.

...You can delude yourself into believing that questioning things is a lack of faith. But I would be inclined to remind you that until you DO question your faith, you really have no faith at all.

Finally something I agree with. But I have found that honestly questioning my own faith actually resulted in making it stronger, like tempering steel through fire.

What you have instead is a collection of beliefs -- beliefs that a frightened little ego in you will cling to for a sense of security and identity with other little egos that cling to a similar set of beliefs -- but these beliefs will not translate into personal inner transformation. They will not sustain you through life either. They didn't for me[emphasis mine, JK]. It was not until I questioned and doubted the things I was taught, including the bodily resurrection of Jesus, that I met, and believed -- or, fell in love with -- a genuine and believable Jesus whose teachings, whose enduring spirit, and whose eternal influence continues to guide seekers into a transformative relationship with themselves and with the Divine.

The key phrase here is, "they didn't for me." As if that settles reality for everyone else. The witness of millions of Christian believers disputes his opinion-stated-as-fact. Note that the very title of his book indicates that he claims one can know whatever he figures God is, but apparently his god has no power, at least not enough to resurrect Jesus. He has short-changed himself by imagining a god weaker than the real one; by inventing a religion less than the true one.

So, this Easter, I have a lot to be grateful for. And, I am.

Yes, but thankful to Whom? Some imaginary new-age "Divine", or the God who has the power to rise from the grave...

...Literally!

Take Care

Mention of Jesus Banned From Movie Houses

2011-04-09T20:55:00.002-06:00

As a curseword? No. Actors on the screen can still take the Lord's name as a swearword all they want.
But this ad, paid for by a church to invite people to their Easter services, was pulled because someone objected to the mention of the name, "Jesus."

I'm not sure if the same peole would object to it being used in vain as diologue in the movie.

I suspect not. I suspect it is just another example of ill-thought-out atheist illogic.

Take Care

h/t The Michael Coren Show

Israel the Bad Guy? Well... maybe Not.

2011-04-04T21:36:00.002-06:00

From Here...

The 2010 Goldstone Report, as it came to be known, accused Israel of crimes against civilians. “If I had known then what I know now,” the judge allows, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”

In his revisionist editorial, the judge writes, it now “goes without saying that crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional, that its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.” Israel, on the other hand, presented clear evidence that “civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”

“Some have suggested,” he concludes, “that it was absurd to expect Hamas . . . to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so,[!!!] especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. . . . Sadly that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel.”

The judge’s coup de grace on the report that bears his name is the following: “The United Nations Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.” Fat chance. As Goldstone well knows, that council’s current membership includes such major human rights exemplars as China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Libya. The South African’s about-face is welcome, but far too little and much too late.

The world is going where it is going. Just interesting.

Take Care

Of Rapes and Riots

2011-04-02T12:01:00.005-06:00

Here are two stories that may seem totally unrelated... well, they are, except for the way I will try to tie them together.

The first regards the riots and killing of UN workers in Afghanistan as a result of the burning of a koran by a pastor in Florida.

The second, and others like it, concern the blaming of the victim in certain rape cases.

Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely no justification for the reaction in either instance. But aren't the, "cause and effect" concepts similar. In one case, pastor Jones burned a Koran ( a rather silly and pointless thing to do, in my opinion), and the consequence was violent reaction (unjustified in the mind of any sane and reasonable person) resulting in innocent deaths. In the other, women, sometimes, by the way they dress and act, may seem as if they are inviting sexual activity. At the very least, they may be inciting passions in men on the prowl for such activity.

In neither case is the consequence justified. I am certainly not trying to justify rapists based on the dress or behaviour of their victims, but let's face reality. If pastor Jones had not burned that koran, there probably wouldn't have been the resulting riots and killings. And if a sexual asssault victim hadn't dressed a particular way, or been at a pickup bar, or behaved seductively, there may not have been a rape.

Actions have consequences, and sometimes it may be appropriate to consider the possible consequences before taking the action. It doesn't matter whose fault it is to the victim.

So, is the principle the same in both these cases? Think about it.

Take Care

I Can't Take All the Credit, But...

2011-03-28T21:26:00.006-06:00

Power use jumps for Earth Hour

From here...

Despite pleas to tune off and turn off, Edmonton saw a spike in power usage during this year's Earth Hour.

Edmonton was not the only city that seemed to ignore Earth Hour -so did Calgary, where utility provider Enmax reported no change in power consumption.

Let's hear it for the independent spirit that, if not alive and well, seems to be at least surviving in Alberta.

One of my favourite notes regarding this whole earth-hour mania comes in a comment by Michael D. on The MCJ. He writes,

I live in Vancouver, where all of our electricity comes from hydro power. On Earth day, a number of earnest Vancouverites turn off their lights (saving no greenhouse gases) and, ironically, light candles (made of paraffin – derived from petroleum).

They should have known better than to expect Albertans to reduce their power consumption when there was a Flames/Oilers game on the tube. It's so difficult to watch TV by candlelight.

Take Care

We Don't Need to be Like Jonah

2011-03-26T12:39:00.004-06:00

In answer to the question, "... why is it that so many times we need to have that "belly of the fish" experience before we fully recognize and surrender to God?"

We can be open at all times to God's will, and be willing to follow it, knowing that it is good and pleasing and perfect (Romans 12, 1-2). We now have something to know this that Jonah did not have -- we have God's complete written word, and we have the Holy Spirit to convince us it is true and to be trusted. By His word we can be confident that whatever God calls us to, He will also equip us to accomplish. We must always pray that we would have discernment to see His will for our lives, the courage to do it, and the persistence to stick with it.

Pray it for me, if you would.

Take Care

In Honour of Earth Hour

2011-03-24T21:36:00.009-06:00

Put Your Lights On, Santana, Everlast

8.30 PM, 26 March 2011. I don't leave many lights on anyway, and if I weren't so cheap, I would turn all of them on just to spite this new religion. But it would cost me money, and I really do, honest, try to save energy, so I won't.

Great song, by the way.

Take Care

Not That New After All

2011-03-24T21:06:00.005-06:00

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

I am reading, "Between Two Worlds" by John Stott. The book was published in 1982, and in it he tells of something that happened in 1968; both dates well before I became a Christian;

I remember vividly how at the fourth Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Uppsala, Sweden, in 1968, one of the Geneva secretariat proposed to the section on 'mission' that they include this sentence in their report, 'In this dialogue Christ speaks through the brother, corrrecting our distorted image of the truth.' At first hearing it sounded innocuous, until you realized that 'the brother' meant the non-Christian partner in the dialogue. If this sentence had been accepted, it would have been the only reference in the section report to Christ speaking, and it would have up-ended evangelism into a proclamation of the gospel by the non-Christian to the Christian! (p84)

Unfortunately it is a sentiment that has become all too real in many 'churches' today.

Take Care

No Wonder!

2011-03-23T20:02:00.005-06:00

No wonder there is a split in Canadian Anglicanism. Check out the folowing two columns from the Anglican Journal, and pay particular attention to the comments. On the first, here..., it is the comments that tell the tale. Some of them are my own. But basically, see how far some go to avoid acknowledging the necessity of regeneration and belief for salvation.

The second, is a suggestion to change the name of the ACoC to something else. Many are in favour, some wanting to identify more closely with the ECUSA, but with one notable commenter thinking it a good thing to be, "... free from the baleful influence of the Articles of Religion."

One even suggested that the ACoC join with the (Evangelical) Lutherans and the United Church of Canada. What a club that would be! It would be a wide road indeed.

Take Care

Once More the Game's Afoot

2011-03-19T18:41:00.008-06:00

For what it's worth...

Regarding This...
.....US and UK vessels launch missile strike against Gadhafi's limited air defences in Libya

Iraq, Afghanistan, now this?

Without editorializing, I found my self thinking of this passage of Scripture, even though the context is not exactly the same.

That day will be darkness, not light.
It will be as though a man fled from a lion only to meet a bear,as though he entered his house and rested his hand on the wall only to have a snake bite him.
Will not the day of the LORD be darkness, not light— pitch-dark, without a ray of brightness? (Amos 5:18b-20)

I wonder what we're getting ourselves into this time. As I said, just thinkin'

Take Care

(Updated with further thoughts)
What I mean is this; we have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and been stuck there in what we may have called a, "transition period," until stability can be restored in these areas. But even if we don't end up physically occupying them, what are we going to see in the various countries of North Africa in which we are seeing such change and turmoil recently. Is what replaces the status quo going to be better or worse than that which is being replaced? What is going to fill these vaccuums, freedom or increased tyranny and repression? More tolerance for the rights of minorities or less?

We don't yet know, do we?

Take Care

The Growing Intolerance Towards Conscience Rights

2011-03-19T17:05:00.007-06:00

From Here...

In debates about conscience rights something very strange has happened. The left, which used to champion conscience rights, is now frequently opposed to such rights.

This post is inspired in part by this thread and its comments over at Anglican Samizday. It is about a florist who, in conscience, decided she could not provide flowers for a gay wedding. My point here is not to comment on the rightness or wrongness of gay weddings, but whether a citizen in a free society should have a right to freedom of conscience.

The article referenced at the top of this post tends to be concerned with the more serious area of health care, but I believe the basic principle is similar. Should, for instance, a doctor who will not, for moral grounds, provide what he or she feels is an unnecessary abortion, be banned from practicing medicine. I wonder if it may some day come to that. Should a pharmacist who, again on moral grounds, be free not to provide the morning after pill, even though there may be other drug stores close by who will.

Again, from the article,

(There) is a growing belief that once a person receives a license to practice they become, in effect, an agent of the State and therefore must do anything and everything the State requires of them regardless of their own moral convictions.
... an editorial in The New York Times... said that “pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives are engaged in ‘an intolerable abuse of power’ and need to ‘find another line of work.’”
But... (t)he problem with this argument is that it fundamentally rewrites the history and purpose of professional licensing, which has traditionally been aimed at ensuring competence, not on co-opting providers into serving State interests at the expense of their own moral agency.”

I fear we may be heading toward a dictatorship of a politically correct majority, intolerant of any disagreement with its established code.

Take Care

Why I (Still) Like the Alpha Course

2011-03-13T21:09:00.009-06:00

I visited some friends back in Edson this weekend and was given some witnessing material from The Way of the Master, a ministry featuring Ray Comfort and actor Kirk Cameron. I was aware of them before, of course, but this material brought them to the front of my mind once again. I'm afraid I have never been a fan of their style of evangelism. They accost people on the street and Mr Comfort poses questions aimed at having them acknowledge their need for Jesus. I am not going as far as to denounce this, but in my opinion, they tend to be more obnoxious than anything. I must admit that I don't know their record in winning souls for Christ, but in every video clip I've seen of their tactics, they seem to turn people off rather than attract them to Jesus. They ask questions like, "Have you ever lied?" or ,"Have you ever lusted?" or, "Have you ever stolen anything?" Then they try to show the person that he/she is a liar or an adulterer or a thief, have broken the equivalent commandment, and are in need of a Saviour. All correct, of course, but I have the sense they think that by winning an argument, or prevailing in a fight, they will have people flock to Jesus. It seems to be like the UFC of evangelism. Now, I could be wrong of course, and if I am, I truly apologize. But check out the video of their encounter with Anton on the link above. Do you think he came to Christ as a result of this discussion? It seemed to be an attempt to embarass him and argue him into submission more than anything. In other words, did Mr Comfort win a convert, or win an argument.

Jesus, in his earthly ministry, did not accost people in this way. He never chased people to force them to listen to his message. He spoke the truth, and he spoke it to people who either asked him or came to hear him.

I think of the story of the rich young ruler. The young man came to Jesus and asked him how to inherit eternal life. Jesus told him plainly. The young man went away sadly, because he was unprepared to do what Jesus told him to do. Jesus did not chase after him; he did not press his point, hoping that just one more effective argument might convince him.

The Sermon on the mount where Jesus expounded many of the points that Mr Comfort uses in his witnessing, was given to people who followed him to where he taught them, and obviously were willing to listen to what he had to say. Jesus plainly spoke the truth, and in many places in the Bible, he uses the phrase, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

I believe the most effective avangelism is to invite people to come and hear Jesus, then to let Jesus, through his word and teachings, do the work of bringing those with ears to hear, to him.

That is why I like the Alpha Course. It is for people like me who have a difficult time witnessing, because we can all say, as did Phillip, "Come and see." We can all say, as did Andrew, "We have found the Messiah," and bring others to see him. It is for all those who have unsaved loved ones; family or friends; children or parents or siblings; those to whom they have difficulty expressing their own faith and the necessity for a relationship with Jesus. We can all say, "Come to dinner and learn about what Christianity teaches."

I don't want to belittle others' sincere desire to see people come to faith in Christ, and I'm sure The Way of the Master has had some success, but in my experience, the most effective method is just to introduce people to Jesus, be available to answer a seeker's legitimate questions or concerns, but then let Jesus do the rest. He will do the real work.

Take Care

Joke O' the Day - Creation According to Groucho Marx

2011-03-10T11:29:00.004-07:00

"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then God said, "Let there be light". And there was still nothing but you could see it." - Groucho Marx

It's a good thing I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I heard this.

Take Care

They Get It; It's Too Bad We Don't

2011-03-09T20:56:00.010-07:00

Christianity the reason for West's success, say the Chinese

From here...

In the West we are doing our best to destroy our Christian heritage but in China, Chinese intellectuals are coming around to the view that it is precisely this heritage that has made the West so successful.

...a quote from a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in which he tries to account for the success of the West, to date.

“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world. We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.

“The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”

I have posted before about my theory that China is poised to become the next great nation, and a Christian one at that. In fact, it will become great in no small part because it will become Christian. And as we become less Christian, we will become less great.

I believe there are any number of reasons for this. Instead of a giving society, we have become a taking one. Instead of a serving people, we have become a demanding and selfish one. Instead of upholding a nation building, family-centered morality, we are a society of lemmings marching over the cliff of immorality, adding to welfare roles and crime rates through irresponsible sexual profligacy, resulting in fatherless families doomed to lives of poverty and limited education.

And we seem, as a society, to be determined to destroy ourselves. Where it is obvious to the Chinese that our Christian heritage has been responsible for our success, our own media and opinion shapers seem determined to erase every vestige of it. Every day we see signs of this push to eradicate the legitimacy of Christianity in our society. Christians, for example, cannot now be foster parents in Britain if they hold to traditional standards of sexual morality.

Here is just another small example, but I see it as a microcosm of a much larger picture. The town of Morinville, Alberta, just north of where I live, has only Catholic schools. Some parents, after generations of the current arrangement, don't want their children going to them, even though they can be exempt from any religious instruction. In yesterday's Edmonton Journal was a column with the heading, "It's absurd to force children to attend Catholic schools." Now, one may sympathize with the parents, although frankly I don't think their children will suffer any harm, but for a newspaper columnist to use words like, "absurd" and, "force" seems a little over the top, and to me is symptomatic of the anti Christian mania that seems to be pervasive today.

The above noted article includes this quote,

The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is an instrument of the Chinese Communist government which spends a not inconsiderable amount of time and money persecuting Christians and is officially atheistic. If this is the conclusion it has come to, maybe (we) need to reconsider whether it mightn't be an idea to encourage rather than eradicate Christianity.

Take Care
h/t mcj

Holy Communion or a Nice Light Snack?

2011-03-08T19:19:00.004-07:00

For some reason, there is suddenly a flurry of discussion ( Here... and here... seeming to be leading to a move for open communion in the Anglican church. Traditionally, one must have been baptised in order to receive Holy Communion. But those in favour of this new policy, are pushing for it on the basis of hospitality and inclusivity. (See especially the comments on the second link). They whine that we may hurt people's feelings or turn them away by excluding them from receiving communion.

But this issue again shows that they just don't get it. Holy communion is not the same as coffee time after church. It is not the same as sitting down together for lunch. Allowing someone who doesn't appreciate the sacrifice it recalls to take communion belittles the sacrament. Paul warns very explicitly,

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

Mind you, the onus seems to be on the individual to judge for themselves whether or not they should partake. But is there some responsibility on the presider to prevent someone from doing so? I think so. That is why refusing to offer someone communion is not a punishment, or an exclusion. It is a pastoral responsibility. Excluding the unsaved from communion is actually an act of caring, an act of protection, preventing them from eating and drinking judgment on themselves.

Someone asked, well, which of us is worthy? But that misses the point. As I commented on one of the threads,

None of us is worthy on our own. Paul’s prohibition does not speak of the worthiness of the person, he warns of the manner in which we eat and drink. Our righteounsess is not of ourselves, but comes from being, “…found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.” (Plilippians 3:9) It is Christ’s righteousness that is imputed to us; counted as if our own. The unsaved person does not have this righteousness, so by definition, eats and drinks in an unworthy manner. (I realize that I am differentiating here between the baptized and the saved, because the two are not always synonymous, so it is possible for some of the baptized to eat and drink unworthily as well.)

Again, I realize that a great many baptized persons are nominal Christians at best, not having received a true faith. So as I commented later, in my opinion, communion should truly be reserved to those who have genuinely bent the knee and truly acknowledged Christ as Saviour and Lord of their lives.
In the end, that is more important than baptism.

Take Care

The Desires of Your Heart

2011-02-25T13:39:00.006-07:00

"Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart." (Psa;m 37:4)

I was thinking of this verse only this morning, in connection with the "name it and claim it" faith movement. Too often this verse is misapplied to say that God will give us anything we want.

But what I believe it says is that if we delight in Him, He will give us new desires. The actual desires of our hearts will come from Him. Worldly desires come from a heart of stone, but when He gives us a new heart, one of flesh, He will also give us new desires. As we become more and more conformed to His likeness, the desires of our hearts should become closer and closer to His own desires.
It is my constant prayer that my will would conform to His, rather than me expecting His to conform to mine.

Take Care

I Love This Song

2011-02-14T22:03:00.006-07:00

Sunday nights I go to Bethesda Christian Fellowship in Edmonton. They have one of the best worship bands I know. One of my favourite songs they do is this one. I thought it might have been an original with them, but apparently not. Here is a version of it performed by the band who wwrote it, the Desperation Band. It is quite inspiring to be part of a congregation of a couple of hundred people singing this. Watch and listen to the whole thing.

Seated above, enthroned in the Father's love
Destined to die, poured out for all mankind
God's only son perfect and spotless one
He never sinned, but suffered as if he did

All authority, every victory is Yours
All authority, every victory is Yours

Savior, worthy of honor and glory, worthy of all our praise, You overcame
Jesus, awesome in power forever,awesome and great is Your name,You overcame

Power in hand speaking the Father's plan
You're sending us out, light in this broken land

We will overcome by the blood of the Lamb
and the word of our testimony, everyone overcome

Desperation Band Overcome lyrics are property and copyright of it's owners.

Take Care

Wedding Clothes

2011-02-14T20:33:00.008-07:00

The gulf between, for the sake of terminology, orthodox and liberal churches can nowhere be more made apparent than by the comments Here..., notably by commenter Dale Sparkes.

For example;

Sexual relations are unnatural when they are contrary to the nature of the person—whether that nature be celibate, homosexual, or heterosexual. Homosexual relations... are not unnatural, they are, as with heterosexuals, just different between different people.

It is my opinion consolidated from various readings, thematic understandings of the Bible, and relationships with people who have a variety of lifestyles. I myself am heterosexual, happily married. I see the sin in sexuality not in the act but in the condition of the act: exploitive, dominating, violent, degrading, or unfaithful, etc. towards the other... ... I see sin as estrangement from the other in relationship.

Note the repetetive use of phrases such as, 'I see,' and 'in my opinion'; purely subjective feelings on the subject, rather than firm Biblical support, which, if we claim to be Christians, should be our first refernce, as it often was for Jesus. Also, apropos of whatever, note the newest liberal cliche, 'the other,' referring to, I gather, anyone different than ourselves.

More quotes;

Anti same gender relations are not sound Christian expressions, they are simply cultural prejudices founded in fear of difference and the need for a comparison to elevate view of self. Some people pick Semites, others pick aboriginals or dark skinned peoples, some select women, still others pick homosexuals. In time all such views are proven false by God. The fact is God loves them all in their natural condition.

This liberal attitude brings to mind the parable of the wedding banquet in Matthew 22:

“The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’ But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Without having to go into too much detail regarding this parable, the original invitees represent unfaithful Israel, the people gathered by the servants represent the gentiles, and the weding clothes represent the righteousness of Christ, given by God through faith in him. The one who entered without wedding clothes represents someone trying to enter the kingdom of heaven on his own terms, not meeting God's requirements. Those requirements include a total surrender of oneself to God and His will, and a complete trust in His plan for one's salvation. That plan is that one can only be saved and enter His kingdom through the sacrificial death and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus Christ.

But who was responsible for bringing this person in? One of the servants, of course. One of the servants let him in. That servant must have known that the person was not clothed properly, but would have said something like, "It's OK. You can come in, because the King will accept you just the way you are. You don't need to change a thing. He will accept you.

But does this parable illustrate a loving teddy bear kind of God? No! The last sentence of the parable shows it. The king requires us to be properly clothed. But here's the wonderful thing -- He supplies the clothes -- to anyone who asks. He will not refuse these clothes to anyone who truly wants them. God is indeed slow to anger, abounding in love to those who call out to Him. But he will not leave the guilty unpunished. And the blood of that ill-prepared guest is on the head of whichever servant assured him he could come in without meeting the conditions set by the king.

So will it be with all today who assure their followers that they can enter the kingdom on their own terms. And so will it be for those who believe them.

Take Care

When You Hear it Like This...

2011-02-10T08:58:00.007-07:00

How can you not be affected? How can you not be disgusted? How can you not feel pain?

From an article Here... about a former Planned Parenthood director who walked away.

Johnson describes holding the ultrasound probe on the woman’s abdomen and watching the screen as the abortion doctor worked and the mother cried. The fetus was at 13 weeks gestation based on the abortion doctor’s estimate, Johnson wrote.
“At first, the baby didn’t seem aware of the cannula,” she writes. (...the cannula is a hollow plastic tube that is connected to a vacuum-type pump by a flexible hose. The abortionist runs the tip of the cannula along the surface of the uterus causing the baby to be dislodged and sucked into the tube – either whole or in pieces). It gently probed the baby’s side, and for a quick second I felt relief. Of course, I thought. The fetus doesn’t feel pain. I had reassured countless women of this as I’d been taught by Planned Parenthood. The fetal tissue feels nothing as it is removed...
“The next movement was the sudden jerk of a tiny foot as the baby started kicking, as if it were trying to move away from the probing invader,” she continues. “As the cannula pressed its side, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away. It seemed clear to me that it could feel the cannula, and it did not like what it was feeling. And then the doctor’s voice broke through, startling me.
‘“Beam me up, Scotty,”’ he said lightheartedly to the nurse. He was telling her to turn on the suction – in an abortion the suction isn’t turned on until the doctor feels he has the cannula in exactly the right place...

The article also says Ms Johnson is leaving the Episcopal church because of their own pro-choice (read, "feel free to have one of these") stance. This, of course is similar to mainline protestant churches here in Canada, including the Anglican church.

How can anyone counsel such a thing without a very heavy heart?

Take Care
h/t the mcj)

Was John Calvin a True Calvinist?

2011-02-07T19:25:00.006-07:00

I have long maintained, in my discussion with various all-out (as I may call them) Calvinists, that God has placed in every human heart an awareness of Himself. Rightly or wrongly, unless I have misunderstood, those with whom I have had these discussions have disagreed with me on this point, insisting that God has revealed this awareness only to those whom He has elected for salvation. Imagine my surprise, and even delight, to see that I am in agreement in this matter, with no less than John Calvin himself. Calvin apparently agreed that God has implanted in every person what he called a, "seed of religion." Note the following references;

...all men naturally possess some seed of religion... (John Calvin; Commentary on John)

...a seed of religion is divinely sown in all...(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chapter 4)

and perhaps most explicitly;

Since the perfection of blessedness consists in the knowledge of God, he has been pleased, in order that none might be excluded from the means of obtaining felicity, not only to deposit in our minds that seed of religion of which we have already spoken, but so to manifest his perfections in the whole structure of the universe, and daily place himself in our view, that we cannot open our eyes without being compelled to behold him. (Institutes, chapter 5)

I believe this confirms a number of my own thoughts on the Calvinist position.

Only if God has indeed implanted this awareness of Himself, can men be, as Paul puts it, "without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

It makes sense out of John 3:19;

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Only if men are aware of the light can they prefer darkness.

It makes sense of all the verses, and there are many in both the OT and new, where God calls on all people to seek Him, and then promises rewards to those who do, especially, for example;

But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart... (Deut 4:29)

“So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11: 9-13) [emphasis mine, JK]

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. (Acts 17:26-27)

Make no mistake; I give man no credit for his own salvation. Without God's own call, or that, "seed of religion," he would be entirely incapable of seeking Him on his own. And I don't even like the phrase, popular with some, "making a decision for Christ." We do not even decide to, "accept him into our heart." In reality, God comes into our hearts, if you like that term, on His own. I prefer to say that He transfers us from the kingdom of darkness into His own (Colossians 1:13), but that without our permission, or even our awareness, until after it has been accomplished (In my opinion this is the "irresistable grace" of the Calvinist acronym, "TULIP"). Then, rather than, "accept" Christ as saviour, we can only acknowledge him as such.

All of which is to claim that in any future discussions with those Calvinists who disagree with me, I can cite Calvin himself in my support.

Take Care

"Nobody Gets Married Any More..."

2011-01-30T19:51:00.005-07:00

Sorry, but this is another rant on one of my favourite topics.
From Here...
Here are a few excerpts...

Urban teachers face an intractable problem, one that we cannot spend or even teach our way out of: teen pregnancy. This year, all of my favorite girls are pregnant, four in all, future unwed mothers every one...
Personal moral accountability is the electrified rail that no politician wants to touch.

Thanks to the feds, urban schools like mine... public schools with large low-income populations... are swimming in money. At my school, we pay five teachers to tutor kids after school and on Saturdays. They sit in classrooms waiting for kids who never show up.

Within my lifetime, single parenthood has been transformed from shame to saintliness. In our society, perversely, we celebrate the unwed mother as a heroic figure...
Movie stars and pop singers flaunt their daddy-less babies like fishing trophies. None of this is lost on my students. In today’s urban high school, there is no shame or social ostracism when girls become pregnant. Other girls in school want to pat their stomachs.

Boys without fathers cultivate an overweening bravado to overcome a deeper sense of vulnerability and male confusion. They strut, swear, and swagger. There’s a he-man thing to getting a girl pregnant that marks you as an adult in the eyes of your equally unmoored peers. But a boy’s interest in his child quickly vanishes. When I ask girls if the father is helping out with the baby, they shrug. “I don’t care if he does or not,”

The path for young, unwed mothers—and for their children—can be brutal. Consider how often girls get molested in their own homes after Mom has decided to let her boyfriend move in. The boyfriend splits the rent and the food bill, but he often sees his girlfriend’s teenage daughter as fair game.

And there are other dangers. I once had a student named Jasmine, who had given birth over the summer. One day, I observed her staring off mulishly into space for nearly the entire period, not hearing a word I said and ignoring her assignment. At the end of class, I took her aside and asked, with some irritation, what the matter was. Her eyes welled with tears. “I gave my son to his father to look after yesterday. When I picked him up, he had bruises on his head and a cut.” Her son was six months old.

Every fall, new education theories arrive, born like orchids in the hothouses of big-time university education departments.
Every year, the national statistics summon a fresh chorus of outrage at the failure of urban public schools. Next year, I fear, will be little different.

Behaviour that is rewarded will be repeated.
Behaviour that gains approval will be imitated.
I believe that the death of decency; the death of outrage; the death of shame in this area, will be the ultimate downfall of our society.

Years ago my daughter worked in a grocery store. One of the other cashiers, not married, got pregnant. She was heartily congratulated. Smiles and giggling and laughter and plans for baby showers all around. But when my daughter announced she was getting married, (she was not pregnant) everyone thought she was crazy to give up her freedom at such a young age.

The world is upside down. I'm afraid I find it all rather discouraging. As I have said before, I'm a bit of a fatalist in one sense. The world will go the way the world will go. But I hate to see what the attitude of the world is doing to these young people. I am sad for what is happening to them. And I am sad for what they are bringing upon themselves through their choices. And I am angry at a society that seems to push them toward those choices. If only they could see the better way. And if only the world would stop blinding them to it.

Tale Care

The Archbishop's Speechwriter?

2011-01-29T14:42:00.004-07:00

Check this out, a bafflegab generator...

Then scroll down to the bottom of the page where you will see the following disclaimer,

The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. The Postmodernism Generator was written... ...using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars...

Also linked is a site describing how NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliantly meaningless hoax article, similarly composed, was actually accepted by a cultural criticism publication.

Very clever.

Take Care

A Funny Start to My Saturday Morning

2011-01-29T11:41:00.004-07:00

From the Edmonton Journal "Venting" column this morning, something that made me spew my coffee:

I think YouTube, Twitter and Facebook should amalgamate into one large social network. It could be called YouTwitFace.com.

Against the World?

2011-01-28T19:48:00.007-07:00

Doug Wilson makes a post involving G.K. Chesterton, whom I consider one of the most insightful writers I have ever read. I take it he was speaking about where society tends to be heading, and how almost all the population at any given time seems to tend to follow particular trends, just because everyone else is following that particular trend. What is a trend, after all, but whatever it is that a lot of people are doing or thinking. In any case, Wilson says, regarding Chesterton,

...when Chesterton spoke of those sociologists who spoke of the great need we have to accommodate ourselves to the trend of time, he noted that, in any given time, the trend of the time at its best consists of those who will not accommodate themselves to anything.

I think of a great flock of birds flying around. Have you ever seen this? The whole flock seems to be able to turn in the same direction at the same time. It is almost as if the flock is a thing of its own, not a collection of individual birds. It seems to be the same in society, whether the trend is moral, taste in entertainment or the stock market.

But if a certain trend is wrong, or in error, what or who will be remembered, the trend, or those who bucked it? In another quote from Wilson's post, he refers to St Athanasius. Athanasius stood against the Arian heresy in the fourth century, and he stood practically alone against the empire, but without him, we may have had quite a different Christianity than we now do. But as Wilson says,

Athanasius had to stand contra mundum [against the world], and it is he who is the representative man from that era, and not the whole world he had to contend against.

In another context, who do we remember; Wilberforce, who initially stood virtually alone in his fight against the slave trade? Or do we remember the names of his opponents?

Those who follow this blog will know that two of my foci are the encroaching tide of liberalism in the church and the parallel downward spiral of morality in society in general, which certainly seem to be the, "trend of our time,". I think that as time goes by, and these trends continue, as they surely will, those who stand for revealed Biblical truth and Godly standards of morality will stand increasingly alone in the face of ever greater opposition yet to come.

I realize this has been a bit of a shotgun post, but hopefully it all connects. At least in my mind it does. The world will go the way the world will go. My hope and personal desire is that some, whether or not through thoughts started by my writing, might come to realize that they can know the God who made them, and can come to a saving relationship with Him through His Son, Jesus of Nazareth.

Take Care

By the way, a biography of Athanasius may be found Here...

Muppets Phenomenon

2011-01-26T14:41:00.004-07:00

Midwest Conservative Journal gave us a trip down memory lane with this...

So I thought it appropriate to present this Muppets parody of their own number featuring Kermit with a young Sandra Bullock.

Take Care,
John K

Those Who Defend the MTV Program "Skins" Should Not Object To This

2011-01-26T00:05:00.005-07:00

2nd graders had oral sex
From Here...

MTV has introduced a new show called, "Skins," apparently involving fairly explicit depictions of sexual activity among young teenagers. Comments from those who defend the show run something like,

"If you don't like it, don't watch it,"
"MTV has been diligent in warning of the show's content. It's up to parents to control what their children watch."
The show just reflects what kids are already doing. It's nothing new."

Which is all just disingenuous claptrap. They know full well that kids too young to see are going to see it. And they know full well that kids are influenced by what they hear and see. Sex has become so promoted and normalized, much of it by songs, programs and movies available to kids as young as these grade two students, that such activity has come to be seen as normative. Children see others being depicted in sexual situatins and may indeed feel they are somehow different if they do not partake too.

And if you don't think that the liberals don't want things they find objectionable censored, I offer as evidence the fact that the Dire Straits song, "Money For Nothing" was banned recently because it contained one objectionable word

I'm not trying to say that there is only one cause of our present level of morality. Not every instance of underage sex can be attributed to TV shows such as Skins, or songs by Lady Gaga, or explicit rap videos, but even one child pressured is too many. I am reminded of the very stern warning given by Jesus regarding those who would lead children astray:

“It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. (Luke 17:2)

Many people have assumed that Jesus' warning was to anyone who hurt a child, but the term is, "causes to stumble." What it really means is this:

...to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall, to offend, to entice to sin.

I wouldn't want to be some people when they stand on the day of judgement before the one who said it.

Take Care

Let's Be Consistent, Shall We?

2011-01-23T21:09:00.005-07:00

So Fox has told Ashley Madison they will not air their ad on the Super Bowl. Well, that's just nothing but blatant discrimination, isn't it? I mean, if a couple in England can't refuse a room to a gay couple in their bed and breakfast; if a Saskatchewan marriage commissioner can't follow his conscience regarding gay marriage, surely adulterers have a right not to be discriminated againsst! After all, shouldn't adultery be counted as a legitimate sexual orientation?

But Noel Biderman, the founder of AshleyMadison.com, a dating site which offers "guaranteed affairs" to married people, just doesn't get it. Here are a couple of his comments

"If you stop my advertising, if you try to quash my service, people are still going to have affairs.

"They had them long before I came on to the scene and they’ll have them long after I’m no longer in existence.

"...it's ridiculous to think people who are happily married would watch it and decide to commit adultery.

"This notion that somehow my ad is gonna go and create an infidelity nation of Americans or Canadians who watch it is ridiculous."

Which is all completely beside the point. Sometimes it's just a matter of taste. Sometimes it's just a matter of principle. Sometimes it's a matter of just doing the right thing. Biderman can't imagine how someone might say, "I object to your product on moral grounds, and choose not to participate in its promotion.

Now, that may not be Fox's position, because they apparently have accepted other ads from the organization, but that's what I would say.

If I were Fox, that is.

Take Care

Freedom of Conscience Out The Window?

2011-01-21T20:30:00.009-07:00

From here, among others...
This story is a few days old now, but I feel I must comment on it. Gay marriage is now legal in Canada, but I cannot help but think that there is a certain amount of point-proving going on in this case. It is unfortunate that there seems to be so little room on the "winning" side of this issue for compromise. Freedom of conscience will not be allowed.

The question might be asked, what actual right of the gay couple involved was contravened in this case. The right to be married? No, they had plenty of options open to them. The right not to have their feelings hurt? Perhaps. The right to be married by the particular person they chose to do the job? I suppose.

But the position of marriage commissioner is a secular one. The marriage commissioner, as I understand it, is a provincial employee, and the argument that government-provided services, such as civil unions, must be offered equally, without discrimination is probably a valid one. Frankly, if I were the marriage commissioner in question, I would probably see the writing on the wall and resign.

Because this is just an indication of where our society is going. Gay marriage is a reality in Canada, and frankly I say, "So what?" In fact, I withdrew my financial support of Focus on the Family for their spending so much money fighting it. Theirs was a losing cause, and their time, attention and money would have been much better spent focusing on the Kingdom of God, reaching out to people with ears to hear than trying to intervene in the world.

But this story is just another indication of the death of freedom of conscience in our declining western society.

I am not really up on the history, but I find myself thinking of the Nuremberg trials following WW2. This is obviously not an exact analogy, but it seems to me that accused German war criminals were told that following orders was no defence. They should have invoked freedom of conscience and refused to partake in the crimes of which they were accused. Well, a marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan tried to invoke freedom of conscience and he suffered the consequences. Freedom of conscience is the right not to be forced into doing something one feels is morally wrong. But it seems that the legitimacy of freedom of conscience depends on who holds the power.

Take Care

Update:
Albert Mohler writes on a somewhat related incident
Here...

Barnabas

2011-01-09T09:32:00.003-07:00

A program by Charles Price started me thinking about Barnabas. He is one of those Bible characters we might consider a minor character, but I think we’ll see he may be much more important in the early Church than we might think. In fact, and I’ll explain this as we go along, I think he may be given credit for the writing of much of the New Testament.

Barnabas was not his original name. As we see in Acts, his given name was Joseph,

...a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”)…, (Acts 4:36)

And in Acts 11:24 he is described as, “… a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith…|” He was an encourager, and that’s the quality I want to focus on.

Saul, who would become known as the apostle Paul, was one of the most enthusiastic persecutors of early Christians. He sat looking on approvingly as Steven was stoned to death. But then he had his conversion experience, meeting the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. But the trouble was that none of the early church leaders trusted him, and who could blame them. But Barnabas must have seen something in Saul, and stood up for him.

When he (Saul) came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews,but they tried to kill him. When the believers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. (Acts 9:26-30)

(Tarsus was Saul’s home town, so in effect, he just went home.)
Some time later, we read in ‘Acts chapter 11,

Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord. News of this reached the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he arrived and saw what the grace of God had done, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord. Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. (Acts 11: 19-26)

We don’t know how long Saul had remained at his home town of Tarsus, but think of this; without Barnabas, would Saul just have remained at home there? We don’t know, but it was Barnabas who took it upon himself to go and get him.
And we see that Barnabas must have been a faithful friend, sticking with Paul through tough times and difficulties, not only on their missionary journey, but in later ministry as well. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says,

Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas (Peter)? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? (1 Cor 9: 4-6)

It almost seems like only Barnabas is sharing Paul’s hardship in some areas.

We see another example of Barnabas’ faithfulness and encouragement in his relationship with his cousin Mark, also called John Mark. John Mark accompanied Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey, (Acts 13), but we see that Mark left them part way through (13:13) We don’t know why Mark left. Maybe he was young and homesick. Maybe he had, “frosh flu”, first time away from home, etc. But Paul was quite angered by this, because when it came time for he and Barnabas to embark on a second missionary journey, Barnabas wanted to take Mark, but Paul was adamant that they do not.

Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company., (Acts 15: 37-39a)

But Barnabas must have seen something in John Mark, just as he had seen something in Paul himself. Barnabas stood by Mark and took him with him on their own trip to Cyprus. And we can see that at some point Paul must have had a change of heart, because we see in a number of his letters that they were eventually reconciled and he speaks rather highly of young Mark. In his last letter, his second letter to Timothy, he says,

Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. (2 Tim 4:11)

In his letter to the Colossians, he asks that church to welcome him, and in the book of Philemon, he calls Mark a fellow worker.
And we look back and see how important Mark became in the early church. Peter, in 1 Peter, calls him his, “son.” Mark, of course, was a follower of Peter, and it’s quite likely that he set down the story of Jesus as he learned it from Peter in the Gospel that bears his name – the Gospel of Mark.

But it was Barnabas who stuck up for him, and if not for his encouragement, what might have become of him? Would we have his gospel today? And if Barnabas had not stood up for Paul against the other disciples, or had not taken it upon himself to go to Tarsus to bring him back to ministry in Antioch because he saw something in him, would we now have Paul’s letters? Obviously, God ordained that what happened would happen, but I think he used Barnabas and his gift of encouragement in a powerful way to bring it about. Not only was Barnabas an encourager, he was bold enough to stand up for what he knew was right, and defend those in whom he saw good, even against severe opposition.

Those of you familiar with the Alpha Course might remember this story from Nicky Gumbel.

Albert McMakin was a 24 year old who had recently come to faith in Christ. He was so full of enthusiasm that he filled a truck with people and took them to a tent meeting to hear a travelling evangelist telling about Jesus. There was one 16-year-oldteenager whom he was especially keen to get to a meeting, but this young man was hard to persuade He was just not interested. Eventually Albert managed to persuade him to come by asking him to drive the truck. When they arrived, Albert’s guest eventually decided to go in. He went back again night after night until one night he went forward and gave his life to Jesus Christ. The year was 1934 and the young16 year old was Billy Graham.

Everyone knows Billy Graham but how many remember Albert McMakin. Yet without McMakin we may never have seen Graham.

Encourage someone today. You never know what the eventual result might be.

Take Care

God Does Not Exist and He is a Big Meany

2010-12-31T10:07:00.006-07:00

I was watching this episode of the Michael Coren Show
It is a debate between two theists and two atheists on the the subject of the existence of God. I had a couple of thoughts.

First of all, I noticed that one of the atheists introduced a common and irrelevant distraction into the discussion; that the God of the Old Testament was a genocidal maniac. This is totally beside the point. The debate is whether God exists, not the nature of His personality. I suppose one could argue that once the atheist introduces God's personality into the discussion, he is at the very least admitting the possibility of His existence. But as in a discussion of the truth or falsehood of evolution, any such discussion is pointless until one acknowledges the existence of a sovereign and omniscient creator God. Acknowledging His existence changes everything, including one's view of His interaction with His creation in the OT. Until one is agreed upon His existence, any discusssion of His personality is purely hypothetical and superfluous.

Another aspect of the discussion touched upon the existence of rational thought. Now, this may not be an argument for the existence of God in itself, but certainly the pure materialist must consider it. The ability of humans to think rationally and hold and change opinions certainly argues for something beyond the purely natural, that is something supernatural. If naturalism is true, for instance, then everything in the uiniverse, including even our own thought patterns are strictly the result of atoms, molecules and electrons travelling in a way, and along paths instigated by the big bang at the beginning of the universe. But we have the ability to control our thoughts, which indicates to me something beyond pure naturalism.

I picture a huge billiard table with many billiard balls on it. Imagine there is no friction and that it is perfectly flat, so that any ball moving will move in a straight line until it hits a bumper or another ball. Without even getting into the, "first cause" argument, imagine one of these balls set in motion. It strikes another, which strikes another, and so on, until all the balls are moving. None of these balls has a choice about which direction to move. That is controlled completely by how it was struck. So absolutely every movement of every ball is forever subject to forces put into play by the initial movement of the initial ball.

So how can we form opinions, or change our minds, or think of the colour pink when it is suggested to us? Surely there is something beyond mere mechanistic naturalism, which opens the possibility of some kind of, "beyond naturalism," which admits the possibility of the existence of God.

Just thinkin'

Take Care

Well... Isn't That Interesting!

2010-12-29T10:50:00.008-07:00

From Here

..JERUSALEM - Israeli archaeologists said Monday they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man, and if so, it could upset theories of the origin of humans.

What's this? The theory that is considered so airtight might have to be rethought? Go figure.

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

I don't count myself a young-earth creationist. I don't think it's necessary, biblically, so I don't mind hearing that these teeth are as old as they say. What I do believe, of course, is that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that when He created humans, he created them as humans. Where?...

The accepted scientific theory is that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and migrated out of the continent. Gopher said if the remains are definitively linked to modern human's ancestors, it could mean that modern man in fact originated in what is now Israel.

... in the middle east. Now we see that commonly accepted scholarship may have been mistaken, at least regarding the area of origin. Well, (palm to forehead) who'da thunk it?

He stressed that further research is needed to solidify the claim. If it does, he says, "this changes the whole picture of evolution."

I don't claim that this proves anything, but it gives pause; it casts doubt in some areas. It reminds us that majority opinion at any given time is not necessarily proof of truth. And anything that is not the truth is open to revision. Anything but the truth is open to being proven false.

(Update)
What's my bottom line here regarding the Christian faith? I guess it's this; if the Christian story is true, it cannot be proven false, however damning any evidence may seem. If it is false, then those of us who put our faith in it are surely to be pitied above all men. You know where I stand.

Take Care

Here is Why

2010-12-21T09:37:00.005-07:00

Here is why the split in the Anglican Church of Canada is inevitable and necessary. Check out This story in the Anglican Journal. The story is one with which we are familiar, but pay attention to the comments, particularly those of John (not me) and Geoff. They are starkly indicative of the great chasm that separates the two factions in our current dispute.

In them, personal opinion is categorically presented as indisputable fact. Subjective emotional feelings are treated as superior to Scripture. One commenter accused me of quoting, "Bible school" proof texts (even though I actually did no such thing), but no Scripture was given to support his case. It is wrong to exclude gays, it seems, because it is wrong to exclude gays, and that's it! And that's not even the "orthodox" position. We do not intend to, "exclude gays," we just feel that love compels us to point out wrong and dangerous behaviours, whatever the context, and separate ourselves from anyone who unrepentedly insists on continuing in them.

But it's as if "the other side" is determined to hold fast to their position just because it is their position. Trying to carry on a reasonable discussion is like trying to deal with children, when they hear something they don't like, sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming, "na na na na na na."

Take Care

Is It Good?

2010-12-19T14:17:00.006-07:00

Pastor Terry Stauffer links to This Post... at the The Gospel Coalition regarding the recent debate between former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens. The subject of the debate was whether religion was a force for good in the world.

Which rather misses the point entirely. Whether 'religion' is or is not good for the world is a completely subjective mattter, depending upon one's definition of, "good." Often, in a circular way, one's very definition of, "good" is formed by one's religion (or lack of it) itself.

So Mr Hitchens says, in his opening remarks,

Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs? To appeal to our fear and to our guilt, is it good for the world? . . . To terrify children with the image of hell and eternal punishment, not just of themselves, but their parents and those they love?

To which the author of the post insightfully notes,

Behind each of these questions lies Hitchens’ conviction that none of these claims corresponds to truth or reality. From his perspective, there is no deity who takes sides in human affairs or holds people accountable after death for the decisions made in life.

It seems unlikely that he would ask similar questions about hard realities he believes to be true. Is it good for the world to listen to journalists who takes sides in wars and human affairs (as Hitchens has done time and again)? To appeal to our fear and guilt by informing us that unless we prioritize care of the earth, we will be guilty of its destruction—is it good for the world? To terrify children with the images of nuclear war and the risk it poses not only to themselves, but also to their parents and those they love? If good means nice or safe, then none of these topics is good for the world. If good means true or real, then we must address them. (emphasis mine, JK)

I emboldened the section in the quote above because that is exactly what is happening. A recent news story out of Quebec tells of the prohibition of any religious content in government subsidized day cares. But our children are being brainwashed with all sorts of terrifying propaganda regarding global warming, or, "climate change" as it must be called when things sometimes seem to be cooler (like this year in much of the world) rather than following the prescribed pattern. Is that good? I suppose, "good" is decided by who holds the power.

As a sidebar, do I care about the banning of religious instruction from schools? Well, not particularly. The Christian faith began without official sanction by government and it grew very nicely, thank you very much. Perhaps we'll just have to do it again, without a government sponsored platform and even without (my ANiC brothers and sisters?) buildings, at least for a time.

But back to my original point. The question is not necessarily whether religion is good, but should be about whether it is true. In this sense, as I have mentioned before, with thanks to G.K. Chesterton, Christianity is not a religion at all, in the sense that we might refer to all other world, "religions" as such.

Christianity is not a religion as such, but a record, a statement, of facts. Historical facts at that. It is a fact that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything in them, including human beings. It is a fact that mankind then turned away in rebelllion from Him. It is a fact that mankind, ever since, has been trying to reach back to Him, to control Him, to ignore Him, to do without Him, or to reinvent Him in his own image. And it is a fact that none of these attempts are possible. It is a fact that God came to earth in the person of His Son, Jesus of Nazareth to pay the price necessary for the forgiveness of sins, the shedding of blood, in this case His own. And it is a fact that through this sacrifice, we can, through faith in Him, come into a relationship with Him by which we may be with Him forever. That is, enjoy eternal life.

And whether that is good depends on whether or not you believe it. But I would say to Christopher Hitchens what Nicholas Cage said in the movie, "City of Angels,"

Some things are true whether you believe them or not.

And so, all the best to you and yours this Christmas season.

Take Care

h/t New Lumps

Ban Dihydrous Monoxide!

2010-12-18T22:39:00.003-07:00

Many of the delegates at the UN climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, have signed a petition to ban dihydrous monoxide, a key ingredient in climate change, acid rain and... fatal if inhaled...

...A group of college students called Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT, circulated the fake petition at the conference this week.

I hope I don't get in the same kind of trouble here as I did with my post regarding Obama and Keynesianism, but it's just that I hate stupidity, (yes, even if it is my own), and the hysteria over climate change seems to be a particularly fertile field for it.

Dihydrous monoxide, if you haven't guessed or figured it out, would be two hydrogen atoms (dihydrous) combined with one of oxygen (monoxide), in other words H2O, or water. Now I don't look down on anyone who didn't know that, but what on earth are they doing signing a petition when they don't know what they are signing.

From Here...

Take Care

Baptism: Is Immersion in Water Necessary to Receive Forgiveness of Sins?

2010-11-29T19:31:00.008-07:00

I took the title of this post from the blog of Steve Finnell, a commenter on the previous post. In it he states categorically that yes, immersion in water is necessary to receive forgiveness of sins. I must state equally categorically that I believe he is completely wrong. His arguments seem, to me, to be characterized by non sequiturs and going, "...beyond what is written." (1 Cor 4:6)

I don't pretend to able to elucidate completely the Baptist position on baptism, even though I attended a Baptist church for 7 years and having only received infant baptism myself. I must also state that I could not have been more warmly received by the Baptist congregation I attended, in spite of our obvious differnces in this matter, nor could I think of a more Godly congregation of saints. But I understand that at the very least, they see baptism as a sign and a public declaration of one's faith in Jesus Christ after coming to faith in him.

Nor will I attempt to argue the issue at length. A couple of links
Here...
and Here...
...explain things very nicely. That is not to say they will convince anyone holding the Baptist position, but they attempt to explain why those who baptize their infant children feel it is not an unreasonable postion.

What I would like to do is address the one passage often used as a proof text to by proponents of believer baptism, and just ask a few questions about it. The passage is Acts 2:38.

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I have had people take this verse to the point that Peter's words, "...repent and be baptized..." are to be understood as a chronological requirement for all time. You have heard the saying that a text without a context is a pretext. So let us ask the questions.
Q. To Whom was Peter speaking?
A. He was speaking to God-fearing Jews from every nation (Acts 2:5)
Q. When was he speaking?
A. He was speaking on the day of Pentecost, the first pentecost after Jesus' death and resurrection, and upon the occasion of the first ouptouring of the Holy S[pirit; what we now recognize as the birth of the Church.
Q. How many of his audience would previously have baptized in Jesus' name?
A. None.
Q. Is it necessary, in light of the order in which Peter mentioned things, to be baptized before receiving the Holy Spirit?
A. No. Even Baptists would agree that one must have received the Holy Spirit before being baptized. No one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:3)
Q. Is it necessary, in light of the order in which Peter mentioned things, to repent before receiving the Holy Spirit?
A. No. In fact, it is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin, so one cannot truly repent apart from the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit must come first.
Q. Had any of those who received the Holy Spirit that day, including the apostles themselves, been previously baptized in Jesus' name?
A. There is no evidence to indicate so.

In other words, it was a first on many levels; an occasion unprecedented and never to be repeated -- a one time occurrence. Now, we Christians would all agree that someone who has never been baptized, and who comes to faith in Christ, should indeed be baptized. And frankly, every one of Peter's audience would have been in that position on that day, so every one of them should have been baptized. But to take Peter's command in such a wooden, literal manner without really thinking it through; insisting on the chronology of repenting and being baptized, but ignoring that, in the passage, both precede the giving of the Holy Spirit, does it an injustice, and lays upon those who would be followers of Christ, a burden they do not need to bear. In short, it is a proof text that doesn't prove what they want it to.

Take Care

PS: Just a couple of more things.
1. In the very next verse, (Acts 2:39) Peter tells his audience, an audience of adult men, that this is for their children as well. What did he mean? I just ask the question, even if my tongue somewhat in my cheek.

2. This is anecdotal only, but I have been told by a pastor friend who has been to the place in the Jordan River where John is said to have done his baptizing, that the river is so shallow that total immersion was most probably impossible. Christian groups do baptize there today, but apparently an area had to be dug out deep enough for the purpose.

Poverty is a Matter of Immorality

2010-11-26T19:19:00.004-07:00

Not that poverty, as some would have it, is immoral in itself. Rather, poverty, as I have said many times before, is to a great extent a result of immorality. Here is more evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, as if any more is needed.

...the large majority—80 percent—of poor, unmarried couples were romantically involved at the time of their child’s birth. In fact, 50 percent of the couples were living together. Fathers almost always visited the mothers and children in the hospital and usually gave financial support. Even better, most of these new parents said that there was a 50/50 chance that they would eventually marry each other. They spoke highly of their partners’ commitment to their children and of their supportiveness.

But within five years, a tiny 15 percent of the unmarried couples had actually taken wedding vows, while a whopping 60 percent had split up.

Read it all here...
The problem is, of course, that the liberals and the left will never, indeed can never admit, that this type of sexual immorality, or what they might euphemistically call sexual freedom, (that is, a sexual relationship of any kind outside of marriage), is the primary cause of child poverty in our culture.

But the evidence is clear, and until it is recognized and addresssed, our Western culture and society will continue to circle and eventually go down the drain.

Take Care

How Long, O LORD...?

2010-11-25T11:48:00.008-07:00

Some of my freinds in the Anglican Network may be feeling rather devastated over the recent court decision against them in BC regarding their church buildings and property. The BC decision may well, and probably will be, used as a precedent in lawsuits in other areas. I won't get into a great discussion of the issues here. I have made my thoughts clear. But for any who feel betrayed; for any who feel unjustly treated, by their former church or by the courts, I have been thinking of Habakkuk, and offer the following excerpts:

A plea...

Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrongdoing? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted. (Hab 1: 3-4)

The LORD's answer...

...watch— and be utterly amazed. For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told.(5b)

Another plea...

LORD, are you not from everlasting? Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves? (12a, 13)

And again, the LORD's answer

"Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so he may run who reads it.
For still(E) the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end—it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay. (2:2b-3)

Then follow a number of woes which may or may not apply. I leave it to the reader to decide for himself.

But then the assurance...

The LORD is in his holy temple; let all the earth be silent before him. (v20)

And finally the author's own prayer of trust and confidence.

Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will take joy in the God of my salvation. (3:17-18)

Read the whole book. It's only three chapters. Read it again, and rejoice at what the LORD will do.

Take Care

Offensive Images

2010-11-11T10:58:00.007-07:00

Photograph by: Greg Southam, The Journal, File, Edmonton Journal

Read More...

This story brings a number of thoughts to mind. Barb Tarbox died of lung cancer a few years ago and even up to death was unable to kick her cigarette habit. But she became a campaigner against smoking, delivering her message in schools and to all who would listen, continuing to do so courageously and selflessly until the very end. As the story relates, it was even her wish that pictures of her, as ugly as possible, be taken and shown to demonstrate the evil results of her smoking habit.

Apparently the U.S government is considering putting these pictures on cigarette packages. The Canadian government has been hesitant to do the same. Frankly, in my opinion, rightly so. Why? Because, although I don't take a particular position on the pictures themselves, I believe they will do no good whatsoever. Smokers don't care what pictures are on the pack, they will buy them anyway -- the addiction is just that strong. Even Ms Tarbox smoked right up to the end of her life, unable (or unwilling, if I may be forgiven for presuming) to quit. Government do-good social dictators forcing manufacturers to put offensive pictures on cigarette packs, a legally saleable and heavily taxed product, is just a joke, in my opinion.

And of course the other thing is that pro-life demonstrators at Carleton University in Ottawa and elsewhere around the country, are arrested for showing images of the results of abortion, because they may be offensive to the public.

Just as history is written by the winners, so is what is offensive, decided by those with the power to declare it.

I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin', y'know?

Take Care

This Is So Funny

2010-11-03T19:28:00.008-06:00

Especially the strident lady in the red jacket who just keeps digging herself deeper and deeper into embarrassment (I gather someone eventually explained the meaning of, "Keynesian"Although in this case it is at the expense of who would probably be on the liberal side of things, such silliness is not exclusively theirs. It's just that I find it funny when someone so headstrong wades in on something they know nothing about. A number of years ago I remember a similar survey with members of the American public being asked the question, "Did you know that Ronald Raegan is a self-confessed heterosexual?"

By the way, I'm not completely familiar with economic theory, but I suspect he is Keynesian, isn't he?

Thanks to The MCJ

Take Care

More Pre-Trib Dishonesty?

2010-10-29T21:27:00.006-06:00

I hate to keep dwelling on this, but some people just will not let me let it go.

I was listening to David Hocking the other afternoon. Mr Hocking is, of course, a committed pre-trib rapturist, and he addressed the one passage I have often quoted that I believe disproves that very position.

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 KJV)

Mr Hocking went on to explain that the falling away (Gr. apostasia) merely meant, "departing," and applied it to the rapture, as in, the church, "departing." In fact, Strong's Concordance, as referenced in the Blue Letter Bible gives no such definition. In fact it gives only one,

1) a falling away, defection, apostasy

He then said, plainly as you can hear in his radio broadcast, that, at the temptation of Christ, when the angels ministered to Christ, "...it then says they departed..."

Well, first of all, I could find no reference in the Biblical text to the angels departing. The closest reference is the devil departing (Luke 4:13) and secondly, in any case, the word used is not apostasia. In fact, apostasia is used only twice in the entire New Testament, and never in the sense of a mere physical departing.

I have e-mailed Mr Hocking for clarification. Hopefully he will reply, but I'm afraid that, unless I stand to be corrected, this is another case of naivety, myopia or just plain fudging of Scripture on the part of someone clinging to an end-times pre-tribulation rapture position.

Take Care

Good Things We Did Not Provide

2010-10-22T19:52:00.004-06:00

I was listening to Charles Price on one of my favourite radio ministries the other morning on my way to work. In fact, his program comes on from 8:30 to 9:00 AM every morning. So I have arranged to start work at 9:00, I leave the house at 8:30, and I make sure it takes me exactly half an hour to get there.

The other day, in his series on Abraham, he touched on the following passage;

When the LORD your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied, be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. (Deuteronomy 6:10-12)

I never knew quite what to make of this or similar passages. Was God being unfair to those who actually did build, or plant? Was He like an overly doting parent, spoiling his children, removing their motivation to provide for themselves?

But then it struck me like a ton of bricks! This is a picture of God's amazing grace! This is a foreshadowing of what he has done for us in Jesus Christ! He has given us a salvation we did not deserve and could never provide for ourselves. What was a new land for the ancient Israelites is a picture of our new life in Christ.

I can never again think of the Israelites critically for accepting something for which they did not work, because this is what each and every Christian, born again by the Spirit of God, has received as well: a salvation for which we did not work, and which we did not deserve.

And of course, this passsage is immediately preceded by one many will recognize, and which I will quote just because it is there and cannot go unquoted:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deut 6:4-9)

Take Care

David Jeremiah Does it Again

2010-10-21T19:33:00.003-06:00

Just finished listening to David Jeremiah's show on the radio.
Dr Jeremiah is, of course, a committed pre-tribulation rapturist. But on his show last night he quoted the very passage to make his point that I firmly believe refutes it.

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. (2 Thes 2:1-3)

He said that the first verse is clearly speaking of the rapture which, if I were in his camp, I would agree with. But then he leapt to the conclusion, and I am basically quoting him here, that this passage proves that the church will be gone before the antichrist appears! My response was an incredculous, "What ??????"
He walked word for word through the passage and then insisted on his point. What am I missing?

I'm afraid I just can't understand how someone could be so blind. Either he is seeing something I don't, and I am blind, or he is so overtaken by his pre-trib position that he, at least in this case, just doesn't see the clear teaching of Scripture. The passage clearly states that our being gathered together with Christ (the rapture) does not occur until after a rebellion (a falling away or apostasy) and the revealing of the man of lawlessness (the antichrist) is revealed.

As I have said before, there are a lot of well-known and high profile Christians in the pre-trib, or "left behind" camp, and I think that this is a most dangerous teaching, even if one subscribes to a premillenial return of Christ.

Because even if the pre-mil position is true, then teaching that the church will be gone when the man of lawlessness is revealed leaves their followers wide open for deception. If the antichrist arrives on the scene, and believers are still on the earth (as I believe is the logical Scriptural conclusion of the pre-mil position, proven by this vedry passage), then all those who have believed the pre-trib position will not believe that he is, indeed, the antichrist, because they will have been told all this time that he couldn't be. They will have been told by teachers they admire that they will be gone when he comes.

I believe these teachers should be careful about how adamantly they preach their beliefs, and acknowledge that their position may not be quite the certainty they insist it is.

Take Care