Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 2

I came across a blog article attempting to systemize the "cultic" beliefs of Doug Wilson. I like Doug Wilson and I have been blessed to hear some of his lectures and debates and I am quite impressed. The writer of this particular article is not impressed or happy in the slightest regrading what Dr. Wilson stands for. I'd like to respond to this writer because I want to affirm that about a great many things Wilson is correct. This second post deals with Doug Wilson's stance on: On the Law, Homosexuality, and the Sin of Pity". My comments will be in read, the writer of the original article's words will be black.

On the Law, Homosexuality, and the Sin of Pity

The entire legal system would depend on one book: the Bible.

Let's pretend, just for a moment, that we could have it our way. The great revival we have been praying for has occurred, and every executive, legislator, and bureaucrat in the capital has just been saved. Knowing they ought to begin applying Scripture in their jobs, but not knowing how to go about it, they come to you and your church for advice. What will you tell them? How should they apply God's law?

Looking at the Bible with an eye toward applying it in the civil realm, several things become apparent. First, it is pretty small. … [O]n the average, a little over 1,000 pages. Think of the money governments will save on printing and shelf space!

If biblical law is to be biblically applied, then the biblical punishment must be used.
. . .

Of course, there would be laws enforced against certain crimes which are currently ignored, such as homosexuality.

The list of crimes punishable by death would be a long one, and would include witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents. Most people today would consider this cruel, but that's because they are guilty of the sin of pity. We should kill our family and friends, without pity, by stoning them to death if they believe in the wrong God. And we should cut off a woman's hand if she touches a man's private parts while defending her husband in a fight. And our eye must not pity her.

The civil magistrate is the minister of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom. 13:4). God has not left his civil minister without guidance on how to exercise his office. The Scriptures set forth clear standards of judgment for many offenses. Capital crimes, for example, include premeditated killing (murder), kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents (Ex. 21:14; 21:16; 22:18; 22:19; Lev. 20:10; 20:13; Ex. 21:17).

In contemporary American jurisprudence, none of these offenses is punishable by death, with the occasional exception of murder. The magistrates have dispensed with God's standards of justice. Some Christians believe this is an improvement. They would be horrified to think that the "harsh" penalties of the law should still be applied. Sometimes this is the result of the mistaken belief that the Old Testament has no further application after the advent of Christ. This is an exegetical problem. Too often, it is the result of a sinful view of the criminal. This sin is called pity. … Why is pity a sin?

First, pity is not always a sin. But neither is it always good. … God included in the law specific prohibitions against the exercise of pity in meting out punishment.

If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods,". . . you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; but you shall surely kill him . . . (Deut. 13:6-9).

If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out the hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her. (Deut. 25:11, 12).

God commands the judge to evaluate the crime rather than the criminal. If the crime is one for which God requires death, then death must be the punishment. Your eye shall not pity. … Thus, the Bible teaches that pity is not an option where God has decided the matter. The magistrate, God's minister, is to faithfully execute justice according to God's standard, not man's

I agree with Wilson. The only way you  can't is if you disagree with God. Theses crimes are so horrific to God that it demands final and complete punishment because if it was allowed then it would spread like a cancer to all the society. I mean people who disagree with this today are in fact saying that witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents isn't really that bad - certainly not deserving of a death penalty.If you notice that these crimes addressed so harshly condemned for Ancient Theocratic Israel are no longer thought today to be wrong and has been allowed and encouraged in our society today. These same things have become pervasive in our culture along with all the negative consequences that go with them. Those laws were designed to spare God's people of those consequences.  We've got abortion, juvenile delinquency, broken families, generations of children sans mother and/or father, and the occult masquerading as a legitimate faith. Of course our world is broken. We broke it because we disobey God. We deserve what we have. Which why pity was and will be withheld.

As for trying to apply theses standards today....I see no reason to assume that the standard is no longer valid because it shows God's character and that does not change. However we are not told to implement the punishments that were in place in theocratic Israel and I see nothing in Doug Wilson's theology that says we should only that if we re-instituted God's standards we would all be better off.  Wilson is right!

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world?

Is there a Connection Between Jesus and Alexander the Great?

Image via Wikipedia

One argument against Jesus and Christianity is that we borrowed our ideas of  who Jesus is from Alexander the Great. This contention rests on the fact that people thought of  Alexander as being a

Image via Wikipedia

demi-god - half human and half god - Zeus' own son  no less. In Egypt, Alexander was proclaimed to be son of the head of the Egyptian pantheon  (no surprise given the heavy influence of Egypt on Greece). People ask why are Jesus' claims more valid than Alexander's? I have two reasons.

1. Is there anyone out there who believe Zeus and the Olympian gods exists? If they don't then no way could Zeus be Alexander's the great father.
2. The Hebrew Bible predicts the fall of Alexander's empire and it came true perfectly. The Hebrew also perfectly predicts Jesus in fine detail. If it was right about ASlexander, io'm sure it's true about everything it says about Jesus.

I also found a great poem comparing Jesus Christ and Alexander the Great. Jesus is greater!

One lived and died for self; one died for you and me.

The Greek died on the throne; the Jew died on a cross

One’s life’s triumph seemed; the other but a loss.

One led vast armies forth; the other walked alone

One shed the whole world’s blood; the other gave His own.

One won the world in life and lost it all in death,

The other lost His life to the win the whole world’s faith.

Jesus and Alexander died at thirty three.

One died in Babylon; the other in Calvary.

One gained all for self; one Himself He gave.

One conquered every throne; the other every grave.

The one made himself God; the God made Himself less.

The one lived but to blast; the other but to bless.

When died, the Greek forever fell his throne of swords.

But Jesus died to live forever Lord of Lords.

Jesus and Alexander died at thirty three.

The Geek made all men slaves; the Jew made all men free.

One built a throne on blood; the other built on love.

The one was born of earth; the other from above.

One won all this earth to lose all earth and heaven.

The other gave up all, that all to Him be given.

The Greek forever died; the Jew forever lived.

He loses all who gets –and wins all things who give.

Mixed-Race TV Contestant Ignites Debate In China : NPR

I just heard about an interesting story out of China. They have their own version of American Idol and one of the contestants is black. Okay, I know that there is controversy about calling mixed-race people black if one of their parents is black is becoming unfavorable, but if a person is dark enough to receive the same racism I get, that makes one black. Lou Jing is mixed - her mother is chinese and her father is African-American so that means she is probably Native American, Caucasian, and who knows what else. In the country with the largest population on Earth, it's amazing to realize how unique she is. Some of the Chinese viewers are so unfamiliar to seeing people who look like her in person and on television, Lou has seen more racisim that she had ever seen in her 20 years. What is also interesting to me is that I know several people who look like her. If she was walking around her I doubt anyone would realize she was half-Chinese until she started speaking Chinese. The other thing is I am amazed that she lived for 20 years without really having deal with racism. i mean most people in America see it much earlier than that. I gather that her mother was able to shield her from a lot. It's just unfortunate that now she must learn how to deal with it - in public. She is having such a rough time that she no longer feels welcomed in China, like it's no longer her home. I'm sure many African-Americans can relate to that.


Here she is on stage


Mixed-Race TV Contestant Ignites Debate In China : NPR

Alleged pre-Christian parallels to the Jesus story

Image via Wikipedia

I really like honest people, even when they disagree with me. Here is a post written by someone who is not a believer in Jesus but has come to the same conclusions that anyone comes to when they honestly consider the evidence that against Jesus that what he know about him is stolen from pagan sources. Anyone interested in this subject should look at this article. As my own research has shown the position is not just tenable.

Alleged pre-Christian parallels to the Jesus story

Math Teacher Owns Student in Pokemon Battle

I think that this is how a teacher should handle the following:  Getting a test where a student drew a pokemon character (Charizard) because he could not figure it out. The teacher responds by drawing a water-type pokemon the opposite type that Charizard is). This teacher knows more than linear algebra! I'd like to know what kind of school this is where its college level mah and the student signs his name with just his first? Could be hoax....albeit a funny one!.

Math Teacher Owns Student in Pokemon Battle

Why Doesn't Adultery Sting Anymore?

Image via Wikipedia

Has anyone else been following the story of Senator John Ensign having an affair with the wife of his co-chief of staff? I'm amazed and appalled. I'm not just upset with how he cheated on his wife and Mrs. Hampton cheated on her husband. It's worse than that. Our society has really deteriorated to the point that the adultery does not seem that bad anymore as long as you don't get caught. Our laws seem more concerned that Ensign may have paid off that Hamptons to keep them quiet about the affair then they are about his broken marriage vows. Yes, the cover-up was wrong and unethical, but look at where the emphasis is placed. The message being sent is not that Adultery is wrong and evil and will destroy you and your family. The message is "don't get caught".

I think clearly Doug Hampton wants Ensign to pay. I don't blame him.

Hampton makes clear through the interview he isn't going away quietly and believes Ensign abused his power in pursuing the affair. Ensign's legal team has said it's confident that all laws and ethics rules were followed in the case, which includes Ensign helping Hampton gain employment with a lobbying firm as well as Ensign's parents providing the Hamptons with a payment of nearly $100,000 that they described as a gift.

I want to know why faithfulness to one's marriage is not part of those "laws and ethics" in our government and society? It used to be that cheating on your spouse brought condemnation and shame, not congratulatory "hi-fives". I like to put this in the perspective that God so hates adultery that in a theocratic ancient Israel, adultery carried the same penalty as murder. You and the one you cheated with were executed. I'm not advocating that we go back to those penalty just to those attitudes of abhorring adultery.

watch the interview

Senator's Affair Revealed in Text Message

Apologetics 315: Apologetics Podcasts Worth Your Time

Image via Wikipedia

If you need to find good Apologetic podcasts to listen to, Brian, on Apologetics 315, has posted a birilliant summary of some of the best content out there...and how to subscribe!

Apologetics 315: Apologetics Podcasts Worth Your Time

Gospel According to "Supernatural" Redux

I like them show Supernatural a lot. I like the action and dialogue and even the twists and turns on mythology and legends. Unfortunately, it's take on Christian theology and the Bible is completely wrong.

Angels
The show talks about angels almost the same as demons in that angels must interact with reality by possessing a human being - with human consent. Demons don't apparently need permission to possess a human. The problem is that there is no where in scripture that tells us this about angels.

Lucifer
Lucifer made the demons and Lucifer is an angel. The Bible tells us that Lucifer and the demons are all fallen angels.

Anti-Christ
The show represents the anti-christ as one half-human and half-demon. The show even goes as far as saying the Bible is wrong that the anti-christ is Lucifer's son. No where does the Bible say anything about the anti-christ being half demonic.

Aside from a couple of miracles, the show doesn't address God at all. And Jesus is never mentioned. The show casts God as an absent father who cares nothing about his Children. He makes no intervention as the events of the show gets worse and worse - as if he never existed and even characters - humans, angels, and demons say as much. I think the show's creators are saying important things about free will and how they see who God is. It's a world view that is shared by our culture.

Responding to Netzarim - Part 3

Image via Wikipedia

There have been a couple of links that have placed on this blog pointing visitors to the site Netzarim (Hellinized "Nazarene"): Orthodox Israeli Jews, Ra'ana, Israel. I'm all for this blog being open to all viewpoints including idea counterposed to my own. This is why I keep the comments sections open and do not censer the comments. This particular web sites makes claims against Christianity that I do not agree with. I would like to have a dialog on the issues that are brought up on the site. Let me list the claims that I think should be discussed in more detail. The site attempts to make its claims starting from Jewish, Christian, and Islamic perspectives and then bringing them into a single argument. My problem is that the site misrepresents what I, as Christian, believes. Here are a few more of the statements I have issue with. I will be writing this response in 3 parts. This is the 3rd part and my comments are in red..

5. No one can follow two polar-opposite masters — the authentic, historical, pro-Torah 1^st-century Ribi from Nazareth and the 4^th-century (post-135 C.E.), arch-antithesis anti-Torah apostasy developed by the Hellenists (namely the Sadducees and Roman pagans who conspired to kill Ribi Y^әhoshua, displaced his original followers and redacted the NT).

There is no proof Jesus' message was changed by anyone or the the New Testament was redacted in any way. All the NT texts predate 135 AD and not a single example at Netzarim is givcen to show how any  of the textual variations change anything of what the NT says and teaches.

6. NT wasn't even written until 4 centuries after the death of Ribi Yehoshua. (The few fragments of Greek papyri from the 3^rd century were likely either Roman Hellenist paraphrases from Hebrew Matityahu or Roman Hellenist syncretisms.) Even then, only the Roman Hellenists, who had separated from the original Jewish followers by 135 C.E., accepted them.

This simply is not true. We have fragments and references to texts of the NT well before 200 AD. 

7. There are thousands of redactions in the earliest extant source manuscripts of NT.

This true, but that doesn't mean that you can't tust what the manuscripts say and nor does it say that we don't know what the NT says.

8. Easter wasn't celebrated until several centuries after the death of Ribi Yehoshua… and then it was syncretized from the festival for the pagan goddess I*sh*t*a*r / A*sh*t*o*r*e*th by the Roman Hellenists who had separated from the original Jewish followers by 135 C.E.

According to Acts, the first Christians celebrated Jesus' resurrection every week! So what if it only began being called Easter when it was merged and supplanted a pagan festival? It does not matter.

9. Sunday wasn't celebrated until several centuries after the death of Ribi Yehoshua… and then it was syncretized from the day dedicated tothe sun-god by the Roman Hellenists who had separated from the original Jewish followers by 135 C.E.

I sense either dishonesty or ignorance st this point. Sunday was the first day of the week and Bible clearly says that it was common practice for Christians to meet the first day of the week...even prior to 70 AD!

¹Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. ²On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. ³Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. ⁴If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me. 1 Corinthian 15:1-4

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Naturalism, Natural Theology

 I love this series! This time "Naturalism" and  "Natural Theology" are defined. It's a good to know. Not completely Biblical, but still interesting.

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Naturalism, Natural Theology

YouTube - Atheisms Negative Effect On History(Richard Dawkins Response)

Image via Wikipedia

Well since Dawkins will not debate in public anyone with the ability to meaningfully engage him, people are force to make videos like this one. This one counters Dawkins and Hitchen's argument that the worst atrocities in history can be laid at the feet of the Christian Church. Consider that canard refuted.





YouTube - Atheisms Negative Effect On History(Richard Dawkins Response)

Atheism is Dead: iTheism

Here is another great post from Mariano. I fully agree with him. Atheism is true "man-centered" at best and "I-centered" at worst. It is denying our personal responsibility to our creator and instead of worshiping (ascribing ultimate value) to the one who deserves the honor and glory we instead give it ourselves. Mariano is right...it was for this that Lucifer was dropped kicked out of heaven. Thanks, Mariano, another great essay.

Atheism is Dead: iTheism

He Lives: Sproul chapter three: Free Will

On his blog a while back, David Heddle reviewed a lesson on Free Will by RC Sproul. Heddle wrote:
Sproul presents the classic, libertine, Calvinistic model of free will:

We not only can do whatever we want most at a give instant, we must do whatever we want most.

I agree. Then it follows that if we do not desire God, we cannot choose to serve God and accept Jesus as Lord and savior.  I really liked the way Heddle put this:

If free will operates as Sproul describes (and I believe it does, at least to first order) and if we have no desire for God in our fallen state, then we are in deep, deep kimchee. If nothing intervenes to change the desires of fallen men, then nobody would choose God with their vaunted free will, and nobody would be saved. Jesus would have died in vain.

This lack of desire for God, which precludes our wills from choosing God, is nevertheless not an abdication of free will. It is what Jonathan Edwards called a moral inability.

I always give the same example—not perfect but I think it works. A mother of sound mind sits at the kitchen table holding her baby. Though possessed with a free will, she is morally incapable of making the choice to place her baby in the microwave and turning it on. Her free will is not violated—yet she does not have the liberty to make that choice—because her morality will not permit her. Likewise, in this model, though we have a libertine free will, we lack, in our fallen state, the liberty to choose God.

In the reverse of the usual grammatical correction: It is not that we may not, but rather we can not.

 Many Arminians (not all)  argue that we have the ability to accept Jesus or reject Him but given several scriptures I can't get that idea to fly. I think Sproul and Heddle are correct in how they are defining free will  John 6:44 reads:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

The Greek text literally reads that we are unable to come to Jesus - we do not have the ability! 

He Lives: Sproul chapter three: Free Will

Atheism is Dead: Burning Cross and El Zorro (…aster, that is)

Here is a post from Mariano concerning research he has done on Zoroasterianism. It's important because this is a pagan religion that some critics of Christianity use as an example of a religion from which Christianity stole some its teachings. This is not true of course. Reading this post will help you further undestand why. This is extremely important.

Atheism is Dead: Burning Cross and El Zorro (…aster, that is)

YouTube - ACORN Philadelphia Prostitution Investigation Part I

This video is a little scary considering the stories being told in the media now. I think the only reason an issue is being made out of this is because people want to link Acorn to Barack Obama.






YouTube - ACORN Philadelphia Prostitution Investigation Part I

Truthbomb Apologetics: Resurrection Research Links

Here is a great resource listing books, audio, and video regarding why it is tenable to believe that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead and that tomb was empty Easter morning.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Resurrection Research Links

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who Forgive Sin?

Here is Mariano's next part of his series on the Trinity just hit the Atheism is Dead blog. This time the question being evaluated is "Who Forgives Sin?" Most people would agree that only God has the right to forgive sin, therefore if someone is in scripture can be shown forgiving sin, He is God. Thereby showing the Trinity. You can see the list of scriptures showing that Father and Son have the right to forgive sin.


Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who Forgive Sin?

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: C. Stephen Evans on the God Question

 Here is another great quote from the Apologetics 315 blog. Thanks, Brian.

"The question about God is not merely a question about another entity but a question about the character of the universe as a whole. The rejection of the cosmological argument implicitly carries with it a commitment to a rival metaphysical view, such as pantheism or naturalism. Ultimately, the question is not, 'Can God's existence be proved?' but 'Which metaphysical view is most plausible?'"

- C. Stephen Evans

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: C. Stephen Evans on the God Question

Responding to True Paradigm: Corporate versus individual election

Image by Brent Nelson via Flickr

Now this is what I'm talking about. Brennon posted an exegesis on Romans 9 and I posted a response, and now bethyada has posted a response. bethyada and I have gone back and forth a little bit in comment, but I thought that it would help to respond to his latest response giving it the space and time it deserves. My words are in red. Please read the above links with comments to follow what has been said already. The issues I have been discussing with bethyada and Brennon are important and will affect how one sees God, witness, and live but neither position make one more pleasing to God or  less saved.

Hi Marcus. What we mean by freewill is not complete absolute freedom to do absolutely anything, it means the ability to make choices that are ours.

I agree that free will means that we are able to make choices that ours that we are responsible for. MY argument is that left to ourselves the only choices we can make are disobedient to God.

We are best to make them in line with God's will and God may aid us in this, but we can make decisions, at least some of the time, against what God wills for us. That is we can choose to disobey God even while God wills us to obey him. And that choice is ours, it is not some second will of God's. Essentially freewill says that exhaustive determinism is not true.

I also agree that God holds us accountable for our acts of disobedience and evil because we are responsible we disobey because we want to disobey not because God makes us disobey. The question is - is the opposite true - can we obey God without God helping us and prompting us? Since no one does good and all sin and no one measures up - I have to answer "no". Romans 3:23

This does not mean we act completely without God. For Christians much of what we do is with God's help, he strengthens our spirit to do what we know is right, even while our flesh entices us otherwise. But we still have the choice to align our behaviour with what the Spirit is doing in us, or not.

Where does the Bible say we have the choice to obey or not to obey. The Bible tells us its a choice to obey and we do choose. If there is such thing as free will as Brennon and bethyada have defined it, then we can choose to go to Christ without God doing anything but on our own. John 6:44 disagrees.

Next, the inability to do good does not mean we are determined by God. If we were determined by God then we will be doing good. Rather one is choosing various wrongs. Hebrews 11? Are you referring to verse 6? I don't know how you are reading this. I don't see pleasing God as exactly the same as doing good. And claims about no one doing good I read as doing everything good. Of course people do some good. And all good done by everyone is with God's help. Unbelievers do some good things which we can trace to God's workings in this world.

Not everyone is determined by God to do good. It's a gift. Not everyone gets it. I was referring to Hebrews 11:6...it's impossible to please God without faith.  If an unbeliever does good...it is inadvertent. They aren't trying to please God  and don't even realize that God gets the credit. God even uses the evil that people do to bless His people and carry on his purpose.  Think of Joseph's brothers...what they meant for evil God intended for good!

Acts 17 does say that God does a lot. But freewill does not say God does nothing. God does heaps! But identifying many things God does is not proving we have no will and I am an automaton. Romans 1 shows we make choices.

I surely would not argue that any born-again Christian, as I know Brennon and bethyada are, could be described as an automaton. Romans 1 does say we make choices, Romans 9 shows that aside from the power of God there is no other choice a sinner can make.

God does work on the corporate level and the individual level. But these are categorically distinct.

God doesn't leave man to himself. He works on men's hearts but still lets them make the choice whether or not they wish to join his kingdom.

How can we say that God works on our heart and then say that we can choose to join the kingdom. Jesus told his disciples "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." John 15:16  Do we really think the same is not true for us?  bethyada must be saying that if a person can choose to join the kingdom then we can get choose to leave it if we decide, right? I don't know if that is what bethyada is saying but it seems the  logical conclusion.

You are pushing freewill to far. It seems that you see the 2 options as

1. God controlling absolutely everything including our thoughts and actions (exhaustive determinism)

2. God doing nothing and humans being able to make any decision and do anything.

But a denial of 1 does not entail 2.

I admit being told that I push free will too far is funny to me, given that I am arguing that God has true completely free will and we as humans don't. A synergistic gospel seems to deny Ephesian 2:8-10

⁸For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹not by works, so that no one can boast. ¹⁰For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

We have several scriptural examples of how God sent one nation to judge and punish Israel and then God judge and punished the nations whom God sicced on Israel in the first place. God judged the nations because of their heart. In our churches we don't talk about Habbakuk much be we should because it covers this very issue.

True Paradigm: Corporate versus individual election

YouTube - Debunking William Lane Craig

Image via Wikipedia

Um, where is the "A" material? I was expecting something hardcore that would make me sit up and notice. The video's argument basically is that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroy therefore God could not have created the universe out of nothing. It further asserts that the Quantum Wave function of the universe points to high probability that the universe formed uncaused.

Here are my problems:
1. There is a distinct presupposition that there can be no supernatural explanation and that the laws of matter/energy conservation have always held. He offers no proof.
2. Current science does point to the universe sprang out of nothing, leading to two possible explanations: multiple universes with all possible physical constants and laws being present and actualized in each universe, or one universe in which someone set everything up for life and reality as we know it. Take your pick? Which one is more plausible?
3. The arguments concerning the quantum wave function was too much hand-waving. I took a year of Quantum Mechanic at UC Berkeley and I would have rather have seen some equations showing how he is getting numbers of his probabilities for the universe springing forth uncaused.

William Lane Craig is far from debunked...insulted maybe....but not beaten by any stretch of the imagination.






YouTube - Debunking William Lane Craig