Michael Brown – Why I speak in tongues and John MacArthur doesn’t get ch...

Here is an amazing interview with Dr. Michael Brown. I was raised in a Pentecostal church myself. I have never understood why people could concluded that God does not give spiritual gifts today. I have experienced the move of God in my life and in many churches.

What is the Gospel? Thabiti Anyabwile

We all tend to live in our own bubbles. It can be really scary when your bubble is breached. When Donald Trump was elected President, it became clear that many white evangelical Christians  were willing to overlook Trump's  habit of telling lies and record of racism because they believed he would eventually help get rid of abortion because he claimed to be a Christian. Jemar Tisby. at the time wrote an opinion piece about so many white Christians would support racism and how it made him feel "unsafe". When James White (a Reformed Baptist Theologian/Apologist) read his words it really rubbed him the wrong way, prompting many a Twitter battle between some white Christians and Black Christians. James White and others like John MacArthur see the criticisms of racism brought by black Christians like Tisby and Thabiti M. Anyabwile as divisive and unproductive in spreading the Gospel and leading people to Christ. They argue that being Christian transcends race. However, the reason they can ignore the inequities and prejudices endured by black people in America and around the world is because they don't got to live with them. I have heard James White and John MacArthur have harsh words for all people who call for the repentance of White Christians and change in how White and Non-White Christians interact and the power dynamics in Church. They argue that they embrace socialism, Critical Race Theory, Social Justice, and Black Liberation Theology. Many Evangelicals have signed a formal statement - Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel - explaining they disagree with their perceived shift in the church toward social justice. 

One problem is the definitions of  Social Justice does not match what neither what I nor any Black Christian would say it is or what accountability we have to one another when it comes to respecting each other despite the color or skins. They argue against the crazy people who say that white people should put themselves in servitude to black people to pay penance for racism and slavery. Men like Jemar Tisby and Thabiti Anyabwile are not arguing for this at all or changing the Gospel message in the slightest. See the following video below in which Anyabwile defines the Gospel message.



However, given that many black Christians do not have a  background in Reformed Theology, Anyabwile is uniquely qualified to discuss some insight on that and I found his viewpoint helpful.

Are the people who see Jesus in a dream expecting to encounter him?

Interesting? There are increasing reports of Muslims around the world having unexpected dreams of Jesus telling them the He loves them and this is leading them to Faith in Christ becoming Christian. Sounds like the God I serve.

Responding to "Do we live on a young or an old earth? - Ken Ham vs Jeff Zweerink"

I love to listen/watch Justin Brierley's Unbelievable? podcast. He always having engaging conversations/debates. This one is no different. This one has Young Earth Creationism (YEC) vs Old Earth Creationism (OEC). Ken Ham vs Jeff Zweerink.


This is by far not the first time I've seen Ken Ham debate this. And he seems intractable as ever. It's like he does not listen to any viewpoint other than his own. Don't get me wrong. I do think that Ken Ham loves God and that he is a real Christian although I disagree with him on his conclusions. My biggest problem with him is that he does not see that other Christians can love God, respect the Bible, and yet disagree with him. For Ken Ham, his Young Earth Creationism is a litmus test for orthodoxy. He doubts your sincerity and your salvation if you disagree with him on the age of the earth. This is not a salvation issue.  As Frank Turek once pointed out, Jesus is not going to kick you out of heaven if you get this wrong. But I want my views to be true.

In addition, I see no reason to conclude that believing the Bible means denying science or common sense one way or the other. Although I do not agree with Ham that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I also know that does not mean that Ham , or those who agree with him, are stupid and/or evil. Simply put: the conclusions you draw depend on the assumptions you make.  Ham's conclusions are based on his Biblical interpretations that I do not agree with.

Ken makes some of the following assumptions. Green means that I can see how one can see that. Red means I think he is reaching.

1. The six days of creation are six twenty-four hour days like we experience now.

The Hebrew word "yom" was translated "day" but at it's core it means "a period of  time". God is all powerful. Any period of time would have suffice. 1 Billion Years. 1 trip around the sun. 1 second.  Or even 1 attosecond, God can do whatever He wants to do - even six twenty-four hour days. The Bible does not clearly tells us how those periods were measured. Given that there is no mention of  "evening" on the 6th day, the terms "evening" and "morning" may be symbolic. I don't know and no one can honestly say they know.

This is where science comes in. It can help us understand what God did and how God did it.

2.The genealogical lists in Genesis list every individual in the line

Given that all the other genealogies in the Bible demonstratively do not include every single people in the line, there is no reason to think that the lists in the Bible are complete. It is a newfangled idea to list everyone in a family tree because back in Biblical times each genealogy has a point that is not to show just who was related. You can see this by just comparing different list. For example look Jesus' line in Matthew vs Luke vs the lists of Kings in the Old Testament. You will see that some are longer than other because each list was making a different point. We cannot use those years to count the age of the Earth.

3. Accepting an Old Earth model means accepting macro evolution

No reason to conclude that.

4. The Old Earth model represents people compromising the word of God to fit in with the world.

No reason to think this is true for everyone.

5. Ken Ham disagrees about when and how the Bible should be taken literally and worries that people would be tempted to compromise on other parts of Scripture if they are good with compromising on this one.

This is why we need to pray and follow the truth, not stick to what makes you completely.

6. We don't need Hebraic and Greek Scholar to be the final authority on what the Bible says because we can read and understand the Bible for ourselves.

I agree because we are responsible to know God for ourselves.

7. Implying that there was never anything that died (animals as well) before Adam's disobedience in the Garden, plunging the world into the inevitability of sin and death.

This one has a theological bent built on the doctrine of Original Sin. While I accept the doctrine of Original sin, I think Ham is also assuming that an Old Earth means that macro Evolution must also be true and all living things evolved from a single lifeform while all others died out because they could not adapt to the changing world. I'm not willing to buy that. Truth is I am only sure that the Bible istrue but it does not give us enough to jump to conclusions when it comes to the timeline. We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden and we don't really know if the animals were eating one another or not. More revelation and facts are needed.

On the other hand, Old Earth Creationists (OEC) must also make assumptions, as well as scientists who study other fields. Some assumption that are sometimes made in OEC include:

1. The speed of light is constant no matter where you are in the universe, how fast you are moving yourself and has always been the same.

This is a standard scientific assumption. It's the insight that Einstein had that lead him to postulating Special Relativity. And it can be bolstered by experimentation. In college, I observed this in several experiments and the speed of light was near constant. I'm willing to base my life on this one. Why not? Our technologies that harness electromagnetism definitely are based on this idea,

2. The amount of Uranium 238 equaled the amount of Uranium 235 in the earth's crust when the earth first formed. And their decay rates have remained constant.

Because we know the ratio of Uranium 235  to Uranium 238 in the earth's crust today and the rate of decay for both based on the half-life of each element, we can calculate the age of the planet if we assume both elements were in equal amounts in the beginning, I go along with this until either the assumptions are proven wrong or a better theory comes along. Besides, it makes the math work out.

Why Spider-Man Is Returning to The MCU

The Greatest African Queen The World Forgot: Queen Amanirenas

John 6:44 DeCalvinized

source: https://redeeminggod.com/john-6_44-total-depravity/

Leighton Flower posted the following video attempting to give his take on what John 6:44 really says. He contends that it's not about God the Father irresistibly pulling Elect people to Jesus.







I think that there is a major problem in his arguments First, let's look at two of the verses he site.I will be attempting to get a little more context in the discussion.

 43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:43,44 

31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
John 12:31,32

The contention Professor Flowers tries to raise is that "draw" in John 6:44 does not mean "to compel" and then tries to run to John 12:32 to try to argue that "draw" means the same thing there as it does in John 6:44 and it should be interpreted as "invited" not "compelled".  Does this make sense?

Well, going to the Greek text could help us in this case.  The word "draw" in John 6:44 is the same as the word translated "draw" in John 12:32. The word has Strong's #1670 - ἑλκύω.  And according to the Thayer's Lexicon entry I got from StudyLight.org, ἑλκύω  means the following:

1. to draw, drag off
2. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

Which definition fits in  John 6:44 and John 12:32? It's can't be the second definition given the context in both passages are about the source - the power - of the drawing is coming from outside of the drawn. That leaves us with the paraphrase:  "no one is able to come to Christ unless they are dragged by the Father." Same for John 12:32. The word translated "draw" is also used in the context of the pulling in a net. There is no room here for assuming that the dragging has anything to do with those being dragged. Jesus even says in John 6:44 that the same ones the Father drags to him is the same ones that he will save. No one who comes will be lost and no one who is drawn by the Father will fail to come. 

This is the problem with trying to read the context of John 12:32 back on 6:44. Jesus is not talking about the exact same thing. In John 6:44, Jesus is telling why the religious leaders are not believing Him.  As for John 12:32, Jesus it talking about his crucifixion and how it will be through his death all people would be dragged towards him but He did not clearly say they would be raised up. Therefore, Jesus is not talking about the same "drawing".

The word "draw" shows up 8 times in the King James Version. One of the great things about the StudyLight.org site is that when you use the online Lexicon it tells you how many times the words appears in the King James Version and the New American Standard Version.  Here are the 8 passages from the King James Version:

John 6:44

No man can (5736) come (5629) to me, except the Father which hath sent (5660) me draw (5661) him: and I will raise him up (5692) at the last day

John 12:32

And I, if I be lifted up (5686) from the earth, will draw (5692) all men unto me.

John 18:10

Then Simon Peter having (5723) a sword drew (5656) it, and smote (5656) the high priest's servant, and cut off (5656) his right ear *. The servant's name was (5713) Malchus.

John 21:6

And he said (5627) unto them, Cast (5628) the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find (5692). They cast (5627) therefore, and now they were not able (5656) to draw (5658) it for the multitude of fishes.

John 21:11

Simon Peter went up (5627), and drew (5656) the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was (5752) not the net broken (5681).

Some anti-Calvinists have gone as far as trying to interpret the "drawing" as "gently wooing". They claim that God  "woos" us through His loving kindness such that we choose to love and serve Him. No way do any of these eight passages have "gentle wooing" in mind while the drawing is happening.  Outside the Bible, the word was used in the first century to describe pulling a bucket water out of well. Good luck trying to woo water in a bucket.

Calvinism’s Conflation? No, A Needed Distinction

Professor Leighton Flowers has posted another video trying to critique Calvinism doctrine. He argues that Calvinists confuse believers being regenerated through faith by choosing to humble one's self with the choice by God to choosing to save people who believe.
I think that every Christian would agree that one becomes saved by humbling ourselves before our Holy God and agree that we are sinners and submit ourselves to God.The argument here is about how believers reach that level of humility. Professor Flowers does play Professor Sproul explaining how we are regenerated by God but Flowers does not explain how we go from rejecting God to loving God. Scripture is clear in explaining how we are unable to do things that please God apart from His grace. The thing that I think that Professor Flowers is ignoring is that Sproul is not arguing as if God snaps his fingers and then we are free to humble ourselves. We can humble ourselves when we have

been regenerated, No Believer is waiting for God to humble them so that they can be saved because we humble ourselves because God has done that miraculous work in us.

I think that it's really problematic to try to nail down which comes first: The faith and the humility to be saved or the empowerment to live and serve. I think it's akin to questioning your own desires. For example: what if you decided to have corn flakes for breakfast this morning. Is that because you autonomously  wanted that or was it because God decreed from the foundation of creation that you would get corn flakes that day? I don't know. You don't either. And think of all the things God put into motion outside of your control leading up to the point that you could make that decision. It's not a simple answer. However given that we all hated God and was at war with him before we were converted, I fail to see how anyone could choose to accept Christ as Lord and head of their lives without God's help.

What Happened To The Actor Who Played Hercules?

The Political Philosophy of Captain America: Civil War – Wisecrack Edition

Personally, I side with Captain America on this one!

Trevor Noah's Tragic Real-Life Story

Dead like Lazarus or the Prodigal?

I have noticed several videos from Leighton Flowers in which he concisely explains why he believes Calvinism is wrong regarding specific scripture passages and arguments. In this video he, tackled the argument many Calvinists favor in that many use the story of God raising Lazarus from the dead ((John 11) as a picture of how people are dead to the things of God and unable to respond to God's offer of Salvation through Jesus without being regenerated by God first. He tries to argue that Jesus' Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15: 11-32) is a more apt comparison. In this article I am going to use terms and jargon that are common part so this discussion. If any of them are unfamiliar, please feel free to ask about them - or where you can get more information.


 Professor Flowers raises these arguments as an objection to the way many Calvinists view the concepts of "Original Sin" and "Total Depravity".  He is a Christian so he does not reject either but he does have the view point that although people are sinners and undeserving of Salvation, we still retain the same kind of Free Will that Adam and Eve possessed before they fell under the curse of sin and death. Although he agrees that we are sinner but does not believe that makes us unable to respond to Jesus' out-stretched hands to us.

This leads Professor Flowers to argue against the idea that physical death does not mirror the spiritual death of unrepented sinners. The problem with all parables and symbols when it comes to the nature God's relationship with humanity is always going to be incomplete. It is impossible to come up with a single simple picture capturing it all at once. That is why I think Jesus told so many different Parables so we can look at things from different perspectives.

The reason why many people look at the death of Lazarus as a picture for what being dead in sin is like is because scripture describes the lost as being "dead in sin".

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, ² in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. ³ All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh^[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. - Ephesians 2:1-3

The way this reads to me is as a description of being caught in something that you can't get free of and so hopelessly entrapped you don't even know you are caged. 

Jesus describes people in this state as being enslaved. And although I have been in Christ for many years I did not realize that this had been my state to that degree before I was in Christ.

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. - John 8:34

This is why I think the scripture is saying the sinner is more than just separated from God by their sins. When Professor Flowers appeals to scriptures about how believers should be separated from sin considering themselves dead to sin (ie Romans 6:11) I do not think that this means the same thing as  being "dead in sin" but describe being separated from sin - which describe the Elect of God. The Elect are those who have attained salvation by faith. The argument comes up when we ask, "where did this faith come from - a gift from God or grasped by our own free will?"  I am going to skip the question right now about whether this "will" is just described as "libertarian" and/or "autonomous" because it should be covered and distinguished in greater detail not just conflated together. It matters.


Instead, I think it's important to point out that I think Prodigal son parable should not be used here. if the Father in the story represents God, then one who had always been sinner  would not be a son. This isn't the story of a sinner having a "come to Jesus" moment but of a back-slider coming home and how other believers should treat the ones that are coming back.The man had been a son. He knew his father not coming to home for the first time. A sinner coming to Jesus for the first time becomes adopted not having been a part of the family before that time of adoption. Such a person was deserving of the wrath of God.

Again, the reason why all of this resonates so strongly for me was that I missed the part that this was me. I would read these passages for  years and never once connected it to me. I knew it described sinners deserving of hell, but I never really had owned that for me. I mean I was a sinner and I repented but never really thought I deserved to go to hell...that next guy sure....but me? Hitler? Of course. White colonist raping, stealing, enslaving and murdering my ancestors? Oh I just knew they should all burn,  Me? Nah.  Come to find out that the scripture was talking about me too.

Here is one of many scriptures about our inability to turn to Christ on our own terms and our own power.

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

Sorry, Professor Flowers, but in that analogy of trying to climb up the rope to safety given in the video does not fit the above scripture. Paul points out that if  you are living according to your flesh you are not just dead to (or separated from)  the things of  God, you are dead - unable to even see the rope that have been let down for you let alone to climb it. Not just that - we are so hopelessly depraved we don't even want to get out of the situation. Even the desire to be free is a gift from God because without it we have nothing but enmity (as the King James Version puts it) towards God. Like Joseph Stalin on his death bed, we shake our fist at God with hatred and a rebellious heart.

I think that there is a modern parable that can be used here: The Matrix from the  Matrix movies. Remember how  Morpheus explains to Neo how the people who are still plugged into the Matrix are a danger to them? Sounds like being trapped in sin to me. 



So, how is it that any human being gets past ourselves and makes it to God? It's a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. This discussion is far from over, but I think that describing the event of human beings coming to Jesus and obtaining salvation  - freedom from sin and death -  as being just as miraculous as Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is a very good comparison.

BLACK ZEBRA

In What Sense Did Christ Die for the Non-Elect? // Ask Pastor John

John Piper starts with 1 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:11; John 3:16; Romans 8:32. I find that I agree with Him. I don't think any Christian disagrees what Jesus's death means for the Elect. Jesus literally saved us and this effective to everyone who believes. The Gospel should be given and spread to everyone and we need not worry who is going to be elected for salvation because we do not know who will be believe or if they will ever believe. That's the job of the Holy Spirit to convict and thereby save them. We just need to tell them what Jesus did.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: Sean McDowell and Matthew Vines in Conversation- What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

  Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: Sean McDowell and Matthew Vines in Conversation- What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

Make money online with these legitimate jobs | Komando.com

Last week this podcast listed 20 legitimate ways to make money from home. Very interesting.

Make money online with these legitimate jobs | Komando.com

BAFFLED BY BITCOIN? Masters of Cryptocurrency explain everything you nee...