#10 “You took the fall and thought of me above all”
This is a quote from the chorus of the worship song “Above All.” This song was made popular by Michael W. Smith. Is this a true statement? When Jesus died on the cross did he think of me above all? Pastor Mark Gedicks of Windham Baptist Church, pointed out that Jesus could not have thought of us above all. If he did, he would be the worshiper and not the object of worship. This worship song needs to be retired.
#9 Accept Jesus into Your Heart
This phrase is found no where in the Bible. The Holy Spirit comes into your heart at salvation, not Jesus. We do not even accept the Holy Spirit into our heart. The Holy Spirit is a down payment or an earnest, as the KJV puts it. The core of Christianity is truth. Everything we say should be the truth. Jesus is fully man and fully God, eternally in bodily form. How can a God who has become fully man, shrink down small and live in my heart?
#8 Head's Bowed, Eyes Closed, Raise your Hands if You want to be Saved
Did Jesus use this salvation ritual? No, he didn't. Did Peter or Paul? No, they didn't. In fact, no one in scripture has prayed with their eyes closed. There is nothing wrong with it, but it is not mandatory. The whole alter call ritual was invented by Charles Finney in the 1800s. Jesus said, “if you deny me, I'll deny you before the Father.” (Matthew 16:33)
#7 I preach the gospel wherever I go. If necessary, I use words.
This is a quote form Saint Frances. God has called us to preach using words. Our lifestyle, however, must match our wards. Romans 10:17 tells us that faith cometh by hearing. Preaching implies words. We must speak and live the gospel.
#6 It's not my ministry, it's God's.
People who use this want to take the focus off of ourselves and put it on God. Unfortunately, it takes away the individual nature of ministry. Ministry is personal. My ministry is different from yours. God uses people in coordination with their interests, skills, life experiences, et cetera. This phrase could be egotistical, but does not have to be. Too many people get hung up on terminology.
#5 Let go and let God.
This sounds a lot like Buddhism. God wants us to act. He wants us to abide and bear fruit. We don't spread out our arms and let God take us. We submit to his lordship. We get on the alter Romans 12:1. Everyday, we must choose to be a living sacrifice.
#4 Don't do it on your own strength.
This is a misunderstanding of John 15:3 that says without me you can do nothing, which is a statement of fact, not a command. This is a very Armenian concept. Ephesians 2:10 says “for we are as workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath foreordained that we should walk in them.” Christians do good works after salvation. True Christians abide in him. Christians are consistent in their walk. This sounds a lot like use the force, Luke. A true Christian has God's and automatically uses it.
#3 Joy: Jesus Others and You
When I first heard this, it was hard for me because the emotion was gone. This is not a totally bad statement. The church in the modern age attempted to strip all emotion from faith. When you think of the 1800's church, you probably think of a serious and boring ritualistic service. In the Bible, joy involves emotion. In Nehemiah 8, the people responded to the reading of the law with mourning. Nehemiah told the people not to be sad because the joy of the Lord is your strength. He wanted them to be emotional. In our post modern age, Christians are even more leery of emotion. God wants us to love him with all our heart mind and strength. Many Christians have embraced the view of Plato that emotion is evil. The Bible does not teach that.
#2 Joy is different than happiness; you can be joyful without being happy because happiness is based on what happens.
This sounds really profound, but it's not. It is not a Biblical phrase. I did a concordance search and found 13 verses with the word happy. All but one was positive. Only Malachi 3:15 was negative. Many verses talked about how people who feared the Lord were happy. I have no idea where this concept came from, but it needs to go.
#1 It's not a religion it's a relationship. (Barf!)
You hear this all the time. They say religion is man's attempt to get to God and Christianity is God's coming to us. The Bible does not talk about Christianity being a relationship. God is our Creator, Redeemer, and most importantly our Lord (Master). He is not our boyfriend. A proof text is James 1:26, “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.” James is not saying that religion in general is worthless. He is saying that the man who claims to be religious but does not control his tongue, his religion is useless. The very next verse describes what true religion is. If there is a true religion, than religion can not be bad.
Epilogue
These catch phrases, while well meaning, are hurtful to the church. They need to go. I challenge pastors and those who serve as elders deacons or other church leaders to please evaluate these phrases. Jesus wants us to worship him in spirit and in truth. At best these phrases are inaccurate. At worst the are a hurtful distortion of the truth. For the sake of truth, they need to be discarded.
The Greatest Sci Fi Villains
In great fiction, you have a protagonist, the good guy, but you also need and antagonist, the bad guy. Many ties, the antagonist is the total opposite of the good guy. A good villain has the same intensity as the good guy. the villain is a key point of science fiction. Here is a list of my favorite villains in Sci Fi.
Gary Mitchell, Gary Lockwood, "Original Star Trek"
Mitchell was Kirk's right hand man and old friend. It was unthinkable for him to turn bad. After being struck by an energy barrier, he began to get super human powers. He was getting more and more powerful by the minute. A big theme in the original Star Trek is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Kirk was forced to kill his old friend.
Commander Tomalak, Anderas Katsulas, "Star Trek: The Next Generation"
The Romulan Commander who always showed up when you least wanted him to. He is arrogant and always plotting something. In his first appearance, one of his shuttles strayed into Federation space and he demanded it back. In another episode, the Enterprise strayed into Romulan space and he was in charge of the situation.
Gul Dukat, Marc Alaimo, "Deep Space Nine"
This character went through quite an evolution throughout the series. He even worked with the crew and at times appeared to be becoming good. At the end he was revealed to be, the arch nemesis of Sisco and emissary of the anti prophets.
Borg Queen, Alise Krige and Susanna Thompson, "Voyager"
First introduced in "Star Trek: First Contact" she made frequent appearances on Voyager. The queen played a major role in "Voyager's" finale and was a major obstacle in the crew getting home.
Silik, John Fleck, "Enterprise"
Silik was indebted to his patron from the future and was fully devoted to the temporal cold war. He'd help Archer only if he had clearance to do so. He did help the crew learn of the Xhindi and helped Archer save earth from the alien, Voth.
Chang, Christoper Plummer, "Star Trek VI"
Many times when famous actors are cast in familiar sci fi series, it does not work. This was not the case here. Chang was a Klingon war hero who frequently quoted Shakespeare. He was arrogant and overconfident. He even quoted Shakespeare right before his ship was destroyed.
Shinzon, Tom Hardy, "Nemesis"
A clone of Picard, originally intended to replace Picard to provide vital intelligence to the Romulans. The project was scrapped and he was banished to the Reman mines. He is now full of hate. He intended to destroy earth. Picard had to use all of his skills to defeat him.
Emporor Palpatine, Ian McDiarmid, "Star Wars"
At first, he appeared to be a mild mannered Senator with no political ambition. He took advantage of several situations and maneuvered himself into power. He played both sides during the civil war and betrayed both sides. In the end he forgot that what goes around comes around and Vadir turned on him.
President Morgan William Clark, Gary McGurk, "Babylon 5"
Rarely seen on the show, his presence was felt. He looked like any ordinary member of Congress, not sinister at all. He had his predecessor assisted. When the truth came out he declared marshal law and set up a secret police. When he was about to lose power, he committed suicide and tried to take earth with him.
The Cigarette Smoking Man, William B. Davis, "X-Files"
The mysterious man who played a key role in the government's cooperation with the aliens, he obstructed Molder and Skully at every turn. At times he would help them. He played a pivotal role in the final episode.
Gary Mitchell, Gary Lockwood, "Original Star Trek"
Mitchell was Kirk's right hand man and old friend. It was unthinkable for him to turn bad. After being struck by an energy barrier, he began to get super human powers. He was getting more and more powerful by the minute. A big theme in the original Star Trek is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Kirk was forced to kill his old friend.
Commander Tomalak, Anderas Katsulas, "Star Trek: The Next Generation"
The Romulan Commander who always showed up when you least wanted him to. He is arrogant and always plotting something. In his first appearance, one of his shuttles strayed into Federation space and he demanded it back. In another episode, the Enterprise strayed into Romulan space and he was in charge of the situation.
Gul Dukat, Marc Alaimo, "Deep Space Nine"
This character went through quite an evolution throughout the series. He even worked with the crew and at times appeared to be becoming good. At the end he was revealed to be, the arch nemesis of Sisco and emissary of the anti prophets.
Borg Queen, Alise Krige and Susanna Thompson, "Voyager"
First introduced in "Star Trek: First Contact" she made frequent appearances on Voyager. The queen played a major role in "Voyager's" finale and was a major obstacle in the crew getting home.
Silik, John Fleck, "Enterprise"
Silik was indebted to his patron from the future and was fully devoted to the temporal cold war. He'd help Archer only if he had clearance to do so. He did help the crew learn of the Xhindi and helped Archer save earth from the alien, Voth.
Chang, Christoper Plummer, "Star Trek VI"
Many times when famous actors are cast in familiar sci fi series, it does not work. This was not the case here. Chang was a Klingon war hero who frequently quoted Shakespeare. He was arrogant and overconfident. He even quoted Shakespeare right before his ship was destroyed.
Shinzon, Tom Hardy, "Nemesis"
A clone of Picard, originally intended to replace Picard to provide vital intelligence to the Romulans. The project was scrapped and he was banished to the Reman mines. He is now full of hate. He intended to destroy earth. Picard had to use all of his skills to defeat him.
Emporor Palpatine, Ian McDiarmid, "Star Wars"
At first, he appeared to be a mild mannered Senator with no political ambition. He took advantage of several situations and maneuvered himself into power. He played both sides during the civil war and betrayed both sides. In the end he forgot that what goes around comes around and Vadir turned on him.
President Morgan William Clark, Gary McGurk, "Babylon 5"
Rarely seen on the show, his presence was felt. He looked like any ordinary member of Congress, not sinister at all. He had his predecessor assisted. When the truth came out he declared marshal law and set up a secret police. When he was about to lose power, he committed suicide and tried to take earth with him.
The Cigarette Smoking Man, William B. Davis, "X-Files"
The mysterious man who played a key role in the government's cooperation with the aliens, he obstructed Molder and Skully at every turn. At times he would help them. He played a pivotal role in the final episode.
Should the GOP bypass the 2010 Midterms?
The Republican Party has been in the wilderness since 2006 when they lost the House, the Senate and a large number of governorships. In 2008 they lost more seats in the House and Senate but recovered a few House seats they lost in 2006 and they lost the biggest prize of all: the presidency. With President Obama breaking several campaign pledges, like no earmarks, no lobbyists in the administration, and the AIG bonus debacle, Republicans are polling ahead of the democrats in the 2010 midterms. Several Senate seats which have long been off limits for Republicans now seem attainable. In Connecticut, Christopher Dodd with his ties to Countrywide and his involvement with AIG is trailing former Republican Congressman Rob Simmons. Beau Byden, the Son of Vice President Joe Biden, who is the former Secretary of State of Delaware and is currently a National Guardsmen serving in Iraq, is trailing GOP Congressman Mike Castle. It's beginning to look a lot like 1994 when the GOP retook Congress and the governorships. That was hate good news. The bad news was that 1994 led to 1996 when Bill Clinton won reelection.
The Republics viewed the 1994 elections as the beginning of the end of the Clinton regime. The Republicans won in 1994 because they were in the opposition. In 1996, they had power and Clinton had a viable enemy to campaign against. If they had not retaken the Congress in 1994 they would have been able to campaign from the outside. Since they had Congress, they could not blame everything on the Democrats. Since the Senate leader was the GOP presidential candidate, Clinton campaigned against Congress, especially the government shut down after refusing to pass his budget. Had a democratic Congress forced the budget down the American people's throats, the Republicans could have campaigned against that.
Perhaps it would be better for the Republicans to sit out the 2010 midterms and focus on the presidency. When the Republican took power in 1995, they tries to really take power and make Clinton look like a lame duck. They over reached by trying to pass their contract with America and acted like they had a mandate to govern.Clinton had the bully pulpit and turned everything against the Republicans. If we stay in the minority and let the democrats continue to suck it up, we'll have something to campaign on. President Obama promised change and we've seen little change.
I am not saying we should skip out on the midterms. I am throwing it out there to think about. For us who don't like the direction America is going in, we need to think of the best way to change it. Should we retake the legislature or let the democrats continue to govern and have a platform in 2012.
The Republics viewed the 1994 elections as the beginning of the end of the Clinton regime. The Republicans won in 1994 because they were in the opposition. In 1996, they had power and Clinton had a viable enemy to campaign against. If they had not retaken the Congress in 1994 they would have been able to campaign from the outside. Since they had Congress, they could not blame everything on the Democrats. Since the Senate leader was the GOP presidential candidate, Clinton campaigned against Congress, especially the government shut down after refusing to pass his budget. Had a democratic Congress forced the budget down the American people's throats, the Republicans could have campaigned against that.
Perhaps it would be better for the Republicans to sit out the 2010 midterms and focus on the presidency. When the Republican took power in 1995, they tries to really take power and make Clinton look like a lame duck. They over reached by trying to pass their contract with America and acted like they had a mandate to govern.Clinton had the bully pulpit and turned everything against the Republicans. If we stay in the minority and let the democrats continue to suck it up, we'll have something to campaign on. President Obama promised change and we've seen little change.
I am not saying we should skip out on the midterms. I am throwing it out there to think about. For us who don't like the direction America is going in, we need to think of the best way to change it. Should we retake the legislature or let the democrats continue to govern and have a platform in 2012.
The Best Enterprise Episodes
For many Trekkers, Enterprise is seen as the weakest of all series. The show did, however, have some exceptional episodes. Here is a list of my top ten favorites and why.
#10 “Regeneration” The Borg episode. Even before it aired, it was very controversial. Some Internet bloggers hated it before they saw it. I was skeptical when I first heard about it but felt the writers pulled it off. It was a nice follow up to “First Contact” and did not destroy the Star Trek canon. Good TV often involves a gamble. It had a bit of an X-Files feel to it and was scary at times.
#9 “Forge”, “Syrianites”, “Kir'Shara” Also known as the Vulcan trilogy. Since Enterprise first aired many fans wondered why the Vulcans in Enterprise were different from the Vulcans inn the rest of Star Trek. This answers that question. This episode also includes an appearance by the Vulcan leader T'Pau, who appeared in the original series episode “Amok Time”.
#8 “Babel I,” “United,” “Enar” Because of established Star Trek history, Romulan appearance on Enterprise were tricky. No human could interact with them. This necessitated that any Romulan character would probably be a main character. Brian Thompson gave a masterful performance as a disgraced senator turned military commander. The episode involved a Romulan ship controlled by remote. My only complaint was that the Romulans wore the uniforms from “Star Trek Nemesis.”
#7 “Azadi Prime” All through season three, we were wondering, who are the mysterious aliens who are aiding the Xhindi. That question is answered in this episode. We also get a glimpse into the twenty seventh episode and the Enterprise J.
#6 “Twilight” Archer loses his short term memory due to a temporal life form. There is a reference to the original series episode “Space Seed” and “Star Trek II.” Demoralized humanity is forced to settle on Seti Alpha Five.
#5 “Zero Hour” This was the season three finale. The entire season, which was one big way. There was a lot of references to the birth of the federation in this episode as well. The episode ends with a surprise.
#4 “Broken Bow” The pilot episode. One of the most creative and innovative Star Trek pilots. It was somewhat of a sequel to “Star Trek: First Contact”. It even had a cameo appearance by James Cromwell. We are introduced to Silic, the Suluban who is being aided by someone in the future.
#3 “Borderlands,” “Cold Station,” “Augments” Brent Spiner guest stars as an ancestor to Data's creator. This trilogy pay homage to “Star Trek II.” It even includes a reference to Kahn. This episode has a death defying rescue by Archer.
#2 “Storm Front I and II” The Enterprise crew just saved Earth from the Xhindi. You'd think they'd be able to relax. They couldn't because an alien race had gone back in time and teamed up with the Nazis to build a tunnel to the future. The Enterprise crew must stop the plot with the help of an unexpected ally.
#1 “In a Mirror Darkly” One of the most creative episodes in TV history and one of the best Star Trek episodes. It is a prequel to the classic Star Trek episode “Mirror, Mirror.” Unlike the previous episodes involving the mirror universe, this is set entirely in the mirror universe. All of the crew are evil, although some are more than others. It is a dark episode. It is also a sequel to the classic episode “The Tholian Web.” This is the first time since the 1960s since we have seen the Gorn and the Tholians.
#10 “Regeneration” The Borg episode. Even before it aired, it was very controversial. Some Internet bloggers hated it before they saw it. I was skeptical when I first heard about it but felt the writers pulled it off. It was a nice follow up to “First Contact” and did not destroy the Star Trek canon. Good TV often involves a gamble. It had a bit of an X-Files feel to it and was scary at times.
#9 “Forge”, “Syrianites”, “Kir'Shara” Also known as the Vulcan trilogy. Since Enterprise first aired many fans wondered why the Vulcans in Enterprise were different from the Vulcans inn the rest of Star Trek. This answers that question. This episode also includes an appearance by the Vulcan leader T'Pau, who appeared in the original series episode “Amok Time”.
#8 “Babel I,” “United,” “Enar” Because of established Star Trek history, Romulan appearance on Enterprise were tricky. No human could interact with them. This necessitated that any Romulan character would probably be a main character. Brian Thompson gave a masterful performance as a disgraced senator turned military commander. The episode involved a Romulan ship controlled by remote. My only complaint was that the Romulans wore the uniforms from “Star Trek Nemesis.”
#7 “Azadi Prime” All through season three, we were wondering, who are the mysterious aliens who are aiding the Xhindi. That question is answered in this episode. We also get a glimpse into the twenty seventh episode and the Enterprise J.
#6 “Twilight” Archer loses his short term memory due to a temporal life form. There is a reference to the original series episode “Space Seed” and “Star Trek II.” Demoralized humanity is forced to settle on Seti Alpha Five.
#5 “Zero Hour” This was the season three finale. The entire season, which was one big way. There was a lot of references to the birth of the federation in this episode as well. The episode ends with a surprise.
#4 “Broken Bow” The pilot episode. One of the most creative and innovative Star Trek pilots. It was somewhat of a sequel to “Star Trek: First Contact”. It even had a cameo appearance by James Cromwell. We are introduced to Silic, the Suluban who is being aided by someone in the future.
#3 “Borderlands,” “Cold Station,” “Augments” Brent Spiner guest stars as an ancestor to Data's creator. This trilogy pay homage to “Star Trek II.” It even includes a reference to Kahn. This episode has a death defying rescue by Archer.
#2 “Storm Front I and II” The Enterprise crew just saved Earth from the Xhindi. You'd think they'd be able to relax. They couldn't because an alien race had gone back in time and teamed up with the Nazis to build a tunnel to the future. The Enterprise crew must stop the plot with the help of an unexpected ally.
#1 “In a Mirror Darkly” One of the most creative episodes in TV history and one of the best Star Trek episodes. It is a prequel to the classic Star Trek episode “Mirror, Mirror.” Unlike the previous episodes involving the mirror universe, this is set entirely in the mirror universe. All of the crew are evil, although some are more than others. It is a dark episode. It is also a sequel to the classic episode “The Tholian Web.” This is the first time since the 1960s since we have seen the Gorn and the Tholians.
Reformed Fundamentalist Emerging Church
At first this does not make sense. These three views seem to be at odds with each other. Many times they are. All of these viewpoints have good and bad things about them. All have redeeming qualities. I have tried to chew the mat and spit out the bones of these views. Let's examine these view points.
Reformed
The reformed view is the views of the reformation, primarily in the area of God's sovereignty. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin were major components of God's sovereignty. The TULIP was developed in response to the teaching of Jacobus Arminius who went nuts on man's free will to the exclusion of God's sovereignty. I agree with the TULIP but have reservations about limited atonement. The reformed do not believe for the most part in dispensations or in pretrib rapture. Some reforms, such as the Presbyterians, favor infant baptism. For centuries the reformed view was mostly in the presbyterian churches but in recent years has been popularized and been made mainstream by John MacArthur Al Molar and John Piper. There is now a reformed evangelical and reformed Baptist movement. I am very excited that the reformed movement has tackled the funky doctrine of easy believism with Lordship salvation.
Fundamentalist
In the 1800s the church was not much more than a social club. In the 1900s, fundamentalism began to grow under the influence of baseball player turned evangelist Billy Sunday. In the 1930s Bob Jones continued that tradition. One of the major views of the fundamentalist is the idea of second degree separation. Not only do they separate from the world but other Christians. Sometimes that goes to far. This is a response to many evangelical churches teaming up with Catholics and Pentecostals. In my home church they have starting uniting with churches they wouldn't even think of teaming up with thiry years ago. Another major component is that many are KJV only. While I reject the King James only view I very much appreciate the King James Bible. The translators had a deep respect for the word of God, where the translators of the day allow secular translator experts to guide them. One of the objections I would have to the fundamentalism is there are Armenian bent. I also disagree with their easy-believism. I also disagree with their extreme animosity towards Christian rock.
Emerging Church
The emerging church is an offshoot of the emergent church. When the emerging church decided that they were now emergent, many like Mark Driscoll and Mark Chandler deiced this is where they got off. They started the reformed emerging church, which is heavily influenced by DA Carson JI Packer and John Piper. They are Biblically conservative and culturally liberal. They are jeans wearing, rock listening and culture savvy. In many ways I was emerging church and didn't know it.
Reformed Emerging Fundamentalist
To summarize, I believe God is sovereign. He chooses those who are saved. Those who are saved live like it. They aren't perfect but they are consistent. I believe in dispensational and pretrib rapture. I believe in separation from clearly funky views even if the Christian elite have labeled it a “minor.” I believe that some Bible versions are better than others. I believe that the NA27 may not be the best text. I believe that the KJV is an excellent translation even if it is old and hard to understand. I believe that we can be in the world but not of it. I like wearing jeans and listening to rock. Reformed Fundamentalist Emerging Church isn't for everyone but I like it.
Reformed
The reformed view is the views of the reformation, primarily in the area of God's sovereignty. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin were major components of God's sovereignty. The TULIP was developed in response to the teaching of Jacobus Arminius who went nuts on man's free will to the exclusion of God's sovereignty. I agree with the TULIP but have reservations about limited atonement. The reformed do not believe for the most part in dispensations or in pretrib rapture. Some reforms, such as the Presbyterians, favor infant baptism. For centuries the reformed view was mostly in the presbyterian churches but in recent years has been popularized and been made mainstream by John MacArthur Al Molar and John Piper. There is now a reformed evangelical and reformed Baptist movement. I am very excited that the reformed movement has tackled the funky doctrine of easy believism with Lordship salvation.
Fundamentalist
In the 1800s the church was not much more than a social club. In the 1900s, fundamentalism began to grow under the influence of baseball player turned evangelist Billy Sunday. In the 1930s Bob Jones continued that tradition. One of the major views of the fundamentalist is the idea of second degree separation. Not only do they separate from the world but other Christians. Sometimes that goes to far. This is a response to many evangelical churches teaming up with Catholics and Pentecostals. In my home church they have starting uniting with churches they wouldn't even think of teaming up with thiry years ago. Another major component is that many are KJV only. While I reject the King James only view I very much appreciate the King James Bible. The translators had a deep respect for the word of God, where the translators of the day allow secular translator experts to guide them. One of the objections I would have to the fundamentalism is there are Armenian bent. I also disagree with their easy-believism. I also disagree with their extreme animosity towards Christian rock.
Emerging Church
The emerging church is an offshoot of the emergent church. When the emerging church decided that they were now emergent, many like Mark Driscoll and Mark Chandler deiced this is where they got off. They started the reformed emerging church, which is heavily influenced by DA Carson JI Packer and John Piper. They are Biblically conservative and culturally liberal. They are jeans wearing, rock listening and culture savvy. In many ways I was emerging church and didn't know it.
Reformed Emerging Fundamentalist
To summarize, I believe God is sovereign. He chooses those who are saved. Those who are saved live like it. They aren't perfect but they are consistent. I believe in dispensational and pretrib rapture. I believe in separation from clearly funky views even if the Christian elite have labeled it a “minor.” I believe that some Bible versions are better than others. I believe that the NA27 may not be the best text. I believe that the KJV is an excellent translation even if it is old and hard to understand. I believe that we can be in the world but not of it. I like wearing jeans and listening to rock. Reformed Fundamentalist Emerging Church isn't for everyone but I like it.
We Need to Be Aquila and Priscilla
Apollos was a believer who only knew of John's repentance. His teaching was incomplete. He was not giving the whole gospel because he did not know it. When Priscilla and Aquila heard about him, the could have condemned him as a false prophet, since technically he was. They could have said, “oh, he's part of that emerging way”. And told other people to pay no attention to him, lest they get contaminated. They did not do that. They took him under their wing and filled in the gaps in his teaching. Apollos was mightily used by God.
Some have said that Christianity is the only army that shoots its wounded. I disagree with that statement. I think we nuke our wounded. False prophets must be challenged. But before we label someone a false prophet, we must make sure they really are. Joel Osteen is dismissed as a Word of Faith preacher and deemed no good. If someone mentored him, perhaps he would become a good preacher. He appears to be a true convert, only he has some funky views. Instead of condemning him, we should pray for him. We should pray that God would make him what he wants to be., Rob Bell believes a lot that we do. Perhaps if someone were to come along side him, he too would lose some of his funkiness. To dismiss these people is a disservice. Consider this. Jesse Overholtzer, the founder of Child Evangelism fellowship, did not always believe in salvation by grace alone. He labeled Moody a heretic because he did believe that. God softened his heart and he did come to believe in salvation by grace alone. John Wesley was unsaved when he was a missionary to North America. Martin Luther once said he hated God.
In our modern day, Mark Driscoll was once known as the cussing pastor. He has since repented of that and has turned to godly men for help in his ministry. We never know how people will turn out. The church today loves to criticize everyone. We take apologetics to the extreme. We come to believe the more we criticize, the more spiritual we are. Andrew C Bain makes his reputation as a discernment guy, when he really criticizes everyone. It has gotten so ridiculous that someone has even set up a spoof site making fun of discernment ministries. The Bible says people know we are Christians by our love. I believe in having sound doctrine and I now that false teachers are real. I believe we must discern between a false prophet and an erring brother in Christ. We never know who will be the next Luther, Wesley of Overholtzer. Think about it.
Some have said that Christianity is the only army that shoots its wounded. I disagree with that statement. I think we nuke our wounded. False prophets must be challenged. But before we label someone a false prophet, we must make sure they really are. Joel Osteen is dismissed as a Word of Faith preacher and deemed no good. If someone mentored him, perhaps he would become a good preacher. He appears to be a true convert, only he has some funky views. Instead of condemning him, we should pray for him. We should pray that God would make him what he wants to be., Rob Bell believes a lot that we do. Perhaps if someone were to come along side him, he too would lose some of his funkiness. To dismiss these people is a disservice. Consider this. Jesse Overholtzer, the founder of Child Evangelism fellowship, did not always believe in salvation by grace alone. He labeled Moody a heretic because he did believe that. God softened his heart and he did come to believe in salvation by grace alone. John Wesley was unsaved when he was a missionary to North America. Martin Luther once said he hated God.
In our modern day, Mark Driscoll was once known as the cussing pastor. He has since repented of that and has turned to godly men for help in his ministry. We never know how people will turn out. The church today loves to criticize everyone. We take apologetics to the extreme. We come to believe the more we criticize, the more spiritual we are. Andrew C Bain makes his reputation as a discernment guy, when he really criticizes everyone. It has gotten so ridiculous that someone has even set up a spoof site making fun of discernment ministries. The Bible says people know we are Christians by our love. I believe in having sound doctrine and I now that false teachers are real. I believe we must discern between a false prophet and an erring brother in Christ. We never know who will be the next Luther, Wesley of Overholtzer. Think about it.
Why Don't We Just Believe the Bible?
James 1:22 tells Christians to be “doers of the word and not hearers only deceiving yourself. (ESV) Christians are to read God's word and obey it. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that “all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” There are a lot of New Testament and Old Testament verses that extol the benefits of reading and obeying God's word. Yet a new movement has infiltrated evangelical Christianity. It is called text criticism.
Text criticism is a process of discovering the best ancient manuscript of the Bible. It is also called lower criticism. Since, unlike higher criticism, lower criticism claims to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The major expert in text criticism is Bruce Metzger, head of Princeton theological seminar, and author of Texts of the New Testament. Text criticism has questioned the authenticity of several sections of the New Testament. The two major sections are John 8 and Mark 16. John 8 tells the story of the woman caught in adultery. Mark 16 talks about snake handling. While non KJV and NKJV do contain these sections, the usually put a disclaimer about it or put it in a foot note. If you've ever read Metzger's book, you can't help but have doubt about Biblical inspiration. Metzger claims to be evangelical. Lee Strobel even considers him his go-to guy on matters of interpretation. People's character is determined by the company they keep. What company does Metzger keep?
Bruce Metzger's protege and prize pupil is Bart Erman. Metzger allowed Erman to coauthor his 4th edition of his Texts of the New Testament. Erman is a professor of theology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ermann is a self proclaimed agnostic who wrote Misquoting Jesus. His book questioned whether Jesus' words were accurately translated into English. He also wrote the Gospel of Judas. Why would an evangelical allow this man to write a book with him. This is tantamount to John MacArthur coauthoring a book with Richard Dawkins. To me this sheds doubt on Mr. Metzger.
Is text criticism good for Christians? Let's look at history? In the 1800s text criticism was very popular in America. When Darwin published origin of the species, the church was paralyzed and unable to mount a defense. The church really made no official defense of the Biblical account of creation until the 1980s, when Answers in Genesis took off.
Another problem with Biblical interpretation is the idea of cultural context. This fad involves commands in the New Testament, especially the epistles. The debate is over if a command by Paul is cultural or universal. The principal adopted by many scholars is that if Paul is answering a specific issue in the church, then the command only applies to that church. Many controversial passages have been said to not be for today.
These include 1 Timothy 2:9-14, where women are commanded not to use gold braided hair or makeup. They are also commanded to keep silent in the church. First Corinthians 11:1-16, commands women to pray or prophecy only if their head is covered. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul, under the topic of spiritual gifts and tongues commands women to keep silent in the church and to have any questions they have answered by their husbands at home. God asks us to do hard things. In my flesh, I don't like many things that are in the Bible, but that is in my flesh. Shall not the God of heaven do right? Yes he will. The old hymn says “Trust and obey, for there is no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.” Why don't we just believe the Bible? I am so tired of provisions, provisos and exception clauses. The Bible asks us to do difficult things, but which is better, doing it our way or God's way. Let's believe the Bible.
Text criticism is a process of discovering the best ancient manuscript of the Bible. It is also called lower criticism. Since, unlike higher criticism, lower criticism claims to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The major expert in text criticism is Bruce Metzger, head of Princeton theological seminar, and author of Texts of the New Testament. Text criticism has questioned the authenticity of several sections of the New Testament. The two major sections are John 8 and Mark 16. John 8 tells the story of the woman caught in adultery. Mark 16 talks about snake handling. While non KJV and NKJV do contain these sections, the usually put a disclaimer about it or put it in a foot note. If you've ever read Metzger's book, you can't help but have doubt about Biblical inspiration. Metzger claims to be evangelical. Lee Strobel even considers him his go-to guy on matters of interpretation. People's character is determined by the company they keep. What company does Metzger keep?
Bruce Metzger's protege and prize pupil is Bart Erman. Metzger allowed Erman to coauthor his 4th edition of his Texts of the New Testament. Erman is a professor of theology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ermann is a self proclaimed agnostic who wrote Misquoting Jesus. His book questioned whether Jesus' words were accurately translated into English. He also wrote the Gospel of Judas. Why would an evangelical allow this man to write a book with him. This is tantamount to John MacArthur coauthoring a book with Richard Dawkins. To me this sheds doubt on Mr. Metzger.
Is text criticism good for Christians? Let's look at history? In the 1800s text criticism was very popular in America. When Darwin published origin of the species, the church was paralyzed and unable to mount a defense. The church really made no official defense of the Biblical account of creation until the 1980s, when Answers in Genesis took off.
Another problem with Biblical interpretation is the idea of cultural context. This fad involves commands in the New Testament, especially the epistles. The debate is over if a command by Paul is cultural or universal. The principal adopted by many scholars is that if Paul is answering a specific issue in the church, then the command only applies to that church. Many controversial passages have been said to not be for today.
These include 1 Timothy 2:9-14, where women are commanded not to use gold braided hair or makeup. They are also commanded to keep silent in the church. First Corinthians 11:1-16, commands women to pray or prophecy only if their head is covered. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul, under the topic of spiritual gifts and tongues commands women to keep silent in the church and to have any questions they have answered by their husbands at home. God asks us to do hard things. In my flesh, I don't like many things that are in the Bible, but that is in my flesh. Shall not the God of heaven do right? Yes he will. The old hymn says “Trust and obey, for there is no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.” Why don't we just believe the Bible? I am so tired of provisions, provisos and exception clauses. The Bible asks us to do difficult things, but which is better, doing it our way or God's way. Let's believe the Bible.
Republicanism
As a child, I remember watching Rush Limbaugh's TV show. It was late, so I'd tape it and watch it the next morning. I loved Rush. He was forceful and said his mind. And he was
very funny. He talked about free market. He said that the free market made America great. As a child, my parents instilled in me that less regulation is better. I still believe
that. I have come to realize that Rush and the Republicans view of the free market is not the same as mine.
I do not like the government controlling every area of our lives. I don't like regulations and taxes on business. Some regulations, however, is necessary. What do you mean, Dan? That doesn't sound conservative. Well, think about this, in the 1800s poor children were forced to work in mines and factories. You can't really blame their parents. They had no choice. The progressives in the early twentieth century put a stop to it. That is why the U.S. now has child labor laws. Yes this is a form of regulation but I like it far better than children working in the mines.
The mantra of Rush and Sean Hannity is let the markets decide. When they say they favor a free market, they mean a free market. They want a totally unfettered business. The Republicans believe that the government should not try to get us to use alternative energy. They say energy and oil should compete equally in the private sector. But these same people favor drilling on public lands like Anwar. That doesn't sound like free market. It would be the government that decided which oil companies would drill there. These same people did not have a problem with Bush's no bid contracts. This is not free market. They believe that anything proposed by environmentalists is bad. They believe businesses can do no wrong. If you believe that, I have two words for you, "Bernie Madoff".
This is not what I signed up for. I supported the Republican party because I believe in small government, lower taxes, preservation of the Constitution, religious freedom, pro-family values, and the pro life cause. I do not want a "business is God" party. I don't like regulations, but I don't like kids in the mines either. I do not like the current state of our party and hopes that it changes it's tune.
very funny. He talked about free market. He said that the free market made America great. As a child, my parents instilled in me that less regulation is better. I still believe
that. I have come to realize that Rush and the Republicans view of the free market is not the same as mine.
I do not like the government controlling every area of our lives. I don't like regulations and taxes on business. Some regulations, however, is necessary. What do you mean, Dan? That doesn't sound conservative. Well, think about this, in the 1800s poor children were forced to work in mines and factories. You can't really blame their parents. They had no choice. The progressives in the early twentieth century put a stop to it. That is why the U.S. now has child labor laws. Yes this is a form of regulation but I like it far better than children working in the mines.
The mantra of Rush and Sean Hannity is let the markets decide. When they say they favor a free market, they mean a free market. They want a totally unfettered business. The Republicans believe that the government should not try to get us to use alternative energy. They say energy and oil should compete equally in the private sector. But these same people favor drilling on public lands like Anwar. That doesn't sound like free market. It would be the government that decided which oil companies would drill there. These same people did not have a problem with Bush's no bid contracts. This is not free market. They believe that anything proposed by environmentalists is bad. They believe businesses can do no wrong. If you believe that, I have two words for you, "Bernie Madoff".
This is not what I signed up for. I supported the Republican party because I believe in small government, lower taxes, preservation of the Constitution, religious freedom, pro-family values, and the pro life cause. I do not want a "business is God" party. I don't like regulations, but I don't like kids in the mines either. I do not like the current state of our party and hopes that it changes it's tune.
Rob Bell is Not a Heretic
Rob Bell has taken the Christian world by storm. The jeans wearing, chalk board using pastor who has his church in a shopping mall has turned the church up side down. He has a lot of people talking. He says what he thinks. He does not like glitz. He does like the power point. He favors stripping down the church to the bare bones. He talks of repainting the church. In his book Velvet Elvis
he says, like with the Reformation we have to stop and think about what we want the church to be, we need to define for our time.
Some say he wants us to change the church make it relevant. He does not say it. He says we need to make it real for us. Too many Christians have not defined there faith but live on others' faith. There is hypocrisy and things that are not Christian. Bell wants us to think about why do we do what we do. I disagree with a lot that Bell says but I agree with a lot, too. I am screaming. I see the church and I see so much that does not belong. I am more conservative. I think we do need to stop and reevaluate. Are we behaving as a church as Christ would have us do? Too many bash everyone. As DC Talk says"we are anti everybody call it paranoia". John MacArthur's responce is oppose everything not associated with him. Instead of reading Bell we go on what third parties have said. We tell believers not to read Bell. It will corrupt us. Let's be Bereans. Let's test the spirits not nuke everything we don't know about. Let's test things not judge it until we are sure. All I'm saying is give Rob Bell a chance!
he says, like with the Reformation we have to stop and think about what we want the church to be, we need to define for our time.
Some say he wants us to change the church make it relevant. He does not say it. He says we need to make it real for us. Too many Christians have not defined there faith but live on others' faith. There is hypocrisy and things that are not Christian. Bell wants us to think about why do we do what we do. I disagree with a lot that Bell says but I agree with a lot, too. I am screaming. I see the church and I see so much that does not belong. I am more conservative. I think we do need to stop and reevaluate. Are we behaving as a church as Christ would have us do? Too many bash everyone. As DC Talk says"we are anti everybody call it paranoia". John MacArthur's responce is oppose everything not associated with him. Instead of reading Bell we go on what third parties have said. We tell believers not to read Bell. It will corrupt us. Let's be Bereans. Let's test the spirits not nuke everything we don't know about. Let's test things not judge it until we are sure. All I'm saying is give Rob Bell a chance!
Who Am I
Hi
I am a student at New England Bible College, a father, a Walmart employee and a Christian. I am a conservative in politics. I like Star Trek and sci fi. I love history, music. I am reformed fundamentalist emerging church. I like all kinds of music. This is my place to rant a little about important issues and some silliness.
I am a student at New England Bible College, a father, a Walmart employee and a Christian. I am a conservative in politics. I like Star Trek and sci fi. I love history, music. I am reformed fundamentalist emerging church. I like all kinds of music. This is my place to rant a little about important issues and some silliness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
