Dec 30
I don’t often make reviews of debates, but when I do, it’s usually when I hear a debate that was exceptionally good and is worth commenting on. Perhaps one of the best debates I’ve heard this year was the one between Dr. James White and Abdullah Kunde on the doctrine of the incarnation. The debate took place in Australia back in September 17 of this year. The video of the debate can be viewed below:
Nov 16
One of the saddest things I’ve experienced recently in praying for people-I keep getting this question so I feel compelled to answer it publically. A lot of people coming up with their lives in very difficult circumstances, asking, “Is God punishing me? Is God punishing me?” I’ve had so many women I’ve prayed for recently, struggling with infertility, they’ve had abortions in their past, “Is God punishing me?” No. Because that would be unholy. If you’re a Christian, that means all your sin was placed on Jesus, he suffered and died in your place, for your sins on the cross. For the Father to punish the Son and punish you, that would be unholy. Because that would be unjust. (If we remove Christ that means punishment)
Now, when we sin, there are consequences. If you eat too much, drink too much, and spend too much, you’ll be unhealthy and broke. You reap what you sow. But that’s not God punishing you, that’s just consequence of folly. But no, God doesn’t punish you. God loves you. He does great things for you. Holy, all together good, that’s who he is.
See, Satan would whisper in your ear, when you’re suffering, struggling, sinning, and he would tell you, “God is hurting you.” And he’s a liar. God does great things. “Holy”-not unholy-“holy is his name.” See, what Satan wants you to do, he wants you to run from God rather than to him. He wants you to be worrying rather than worshiping.
Author Unknown
Sep 1
One of the theological debates that takes place between orthodox Trinitarian Christians and heretical cultists and other non-Trinitarians of various stripes is whether the Old Testament confirms or contradicts Trinitarian doctrines such as the existence of plurality within the Godhead and the reality of the incarnation. A full treatment of this subject is outside the purview of this article, partly because there are already plenty of excellent articles that tackle this topic (Such as this and this), and partly because there are too many verses that are relevant to this, that we will only be focusing on one. In particular, there is one verse in 1 Kings that contains a statement by King Solomon which is sometimes cited by non-Trinitarians (particularly Muslims) against the idea that God could enter into His creation:
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! (1 Kings 8:27).
As the argument goes, if God cannot be contained by heaven and earth, then it is impossible for God to enter into His own creation, since that would limit Him to a specific point in time and space.
May 25
[The following article was paraphrased and summarised from an interview with John MacArthur entitled “When believers stop believing: Portrait of an Apostate”1]
No.
If you once professed faith and now don’t, then you were never saved to begin with.
People who believe it is possible to lose your salvation are usually brought to that position because of people like Charles Templeton. It isn’t because they find it in the Scriptures. It’s because they’re trying to explain how someone could be a Christian one day and not the next day. There are massive amounts of Christians around the world who think you can lose your salvation and they’ve got people to prove you can. We need to look at this issue Biblically to try to help those people who might be drawn to that conclusion because of people they know who denied the faith. Read the rest of this entry
Apr 22
How deep the Father’s love for us
How vast beyond all measure
That He should give His only Son
And make a wretch His treasure
How great the pain of searing loss
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which marr the Chosen One
Bring many sons to glory
Behold the man upon the cross
My sin upon His shoulders
Ashamed, I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished
I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection
Why should I gain from His reward
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom
Why should I gain from His reward
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom
Apr 22
Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”
In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.
Matthew 27:37-42 (New International Version)
It wasn’t the nails that held him there, but, as the famous John Newton hymn goes, “It was my sin that held him there, until it was accomplished. His dying breath has brought me life….” Despite the mocking challenge of the chief priests to get down and save himself, he stayed on the cross. He stayed there, held, not by nails, but by his own will.
“…I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
John 10:17-18 (New International Version)
Therefore, be thankful this Easter, for your Lord who laid down his life has risen for you who trust in him.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16 (New International Version)
Yes, he is risen!
Apr 20
I know I’ve asked this question before on my old blog, but I thought it would be a good idea to ask it again here in the interest of generating conversation from a different crowd. And being Easter it ties in nicely.
Eating meat on Good Friday? Is it blasphemous to eat red meat on Good Friday? Where did the vegetarian/fish policy come from?
After speaking to a Catholic colleague; the custom has was originally adopted by the early church (and since maintained by the Catholic Church) from the custom on the Jewish Sabbath. Not only is the Sabbath a no work day but is also a no meat day. And fish is not considered meat to the Jews.
My own thoughts were that there is no problem with eating meat on Good Friday. Looking at the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:10-11, 16-20
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.
Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.
To me this is Jesus lifting all the Jewish food restrictions and saying “Whats food got to do with anything, its just food. There are more important things to dwell on.”
If, on the other hand, having a meat ban on Good Friday leads you to reverent reflection and remembrance of the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, then I don’t see any harm.
Apr 12
[Last updated by Duane: 12 April 2011]
Every year as Easter approaches, you can be sure to find all sorts of opportunistic and inane stories in the main stream media (MSM) concerning the Christian world view. This annual religious tradition – referred to by some as “Christian bashing”, and having taken place for many years now – has left in its wake, a grand corpus of sorts; a body of writing that cannot be considered Christian thought. But can perhaps be loosely referred to as Neo-Christianity.
A few years ago, for example (cue the looney tunes music), the Sydney Morning Herald published an article suggesting that Moses was on drugs when he allegedly met with God on Mount Sinai and earlier when he spoke with God in the burning bush. The punch line in this particular story: The author of the theory “experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations,” after taking drugs!
A year before that, we had James Cameron claiming that he had discovered the very tomb of Jesus himself, bones and all.
During the lead up to Easter in 2009, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) aired a two-part Zeitgeistian program on “The Real Jesus” where the Christian record of Jesus’ life is challenged by examining similar parallels in the accounts of other ancient figures such as Horus, Mithras, Krishna and the Buddha.
Bill Muehlenberg has been observing this annual phenomenon of Easter attacks on Christianity (and for the most part, only Christianity) for some time. Take for example this summary of some of the programs aired by the ABC via its religious program, Compass.
I have already mentioned Easter 2009 and Easter 2006. How about a story on the “three faces of Christmas” – another interfaith push on Christmas, 2007; a three part religion hatchet job by Robert Winston (no friend of Christianity) over Easter 2007; a segment on “the real Mary” (we are told she was the “first apostle”) in Christmas 2004; “Did Jesus Die?” which questions his death, Easter 2004; “Children of Abraham” three common faiths, Easter 2002; “Testing Faith” critics assail Christianity, Christmas 2001; “Lives of Jesus” – another quest for the “real Jesus. Christmas 1999; etc.
- Bill Muehlenberg, The ABC’s War on Christianity
See also, More Artistic License, More Christ-Bashing.
Mar 30
I’ve been listening to Mark Driscoll’s 13-part Doctrine Series.[1] In the first session Mark discusses the doctrine of the trinity. He begins by quoting Augustine, whose contention was “If you deny the trinity you lose your soul. If you try to explain it you lose your mind”. I know what he means.
Of particular interest was Driscoll’s response to the challenge that it took such a long time for the doctrine of the Trinity to develop, with the formal doctrines we use today not appearing until the 4th and 5th centuries. The inference being that the church merely decided upon (or, invented) the Trinity long after the events recorded in the New Testament.
To quote Driscoll loosely:[1]
Some say that it seems like it took a long time for the doctrine of the trinity to develop. Well, when the whole church is suffering persecution, people are being fed to lions, they’re being run through with swords, they’re being burned alive, they’re being crucified one after another, the Pastors are being beheaded, people are running for their lives … it’s really hard to crank out a lot of Systematic Theology under those cultural conditions. You’re trying to live and teach your people, but you’re burying a lot of them also, the whole church is suffering. So it would be surprising to find a robust development of any doctrine from the first three centuries of Christianity. But once persecution died down they started clarifying some of their doctrinal beliefs, including at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD where the belief of one God, three persons was clearly articulated. And that has held ever since. The doctrine of the trinity was also laid down again at the Council of Constantinople in 381AD. Then Augustine of Hippo, spent 19 years (from 400AD to 419AD) studying the doctrine of the trinity. The result was his book ‘The Treatise on the Trinity’, which has held up for more than 1500 years. The result today being that all Christians believe in the trinity [I think Driscoll means, by definition]. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans… all believe in the trinity. We all agree that there is one God, three persons, Father Son and Spirit.
Dec 22
Did you ever wonder what a real Christmas must have been like, before being obscured by the likes of Santa, shopping, office parties, commercialism, and merrymaking assisted by the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol? In the introduction to his book, Stories Behind the Great Traditions of Christmas,[1,2] Ace Collins explores this pastime, beginning with a caution: Before You Wish for an “Old-Fashioned” Christmas…
What follows are excerpts from the introduction that provide just a snapshot of these Christmases of old, and there is hardly one of them that is to be expected.
It seems that the most awesome event in human history, the coming of God to earth as a babe in a manger, has been forever obscured by Santa, shopping, and merrymaking… [But before] we brood and protest too much over what we think Christmas must have been like in generations long past, we might actually feel encouraged about the season we celebrate today when we consider what Christmas was really like in the days of old.
Only in relatively recent times, the past two hundred years, has Christmas even been celebrated by most Christians. Up until the 1800’s the day recognized as Christ’s birthday was largely a pagan celebration. Those who bemoan the lack of religious zeal in modern Christmases would have been appalled at the way people in early America celebrated the day. For a majority of people who embraced Christmas throughout history, Christ wasn’t a part of the day at all. In most of the world, especially in England and America, Christmas was not a time of worship, prayer, and reflection; rather, it was a day set aside to sing bawdy songs, drink rum, and riot in the streets.
For centuries, Christmas was anything but a holy day. It was most often a sinful parade of excess, a day set aside for ignoring laws and even terrorizing citizens… Those who attended church did so in wild costumes, the messages of many priests were anything but scriptural, and gambling was common during the services. After church the poor often stormed the homes of the elite in moblike fashion, pounding on doors and windows, demanding the finest food and drink. If the hosts did not respond, the guests [for want of a better word I guess?] broke into the home and took what they wanted. The drunken celebrations hearkened back to the time when Romans and Greeks marked the winter solstice with a weeklong festival of self-indulgence. As nothing about these celebrations was staid or reverent, many devoted Christians loathed the holiday and considered it an instrument of sin and evil.
