2/29/04:  Things You Catch Third Time Around
     Since I was in Georgia last weekend, we started showing the Tampa debate with Greg Stafford in the Bible Study class I teach at PRBC.  We continued that this morning, since we hadn't quite finished my opening statement last week.  I had presented the first portion of the debate in my Systematic Theology class at GGBTS a few weeks ago as well, so I have now heard Mr. Stafford's opening statement three times.  But it was not until this morning that I caught something (that I wish I had caught then).  Mr. Stafford places a lot of emphasis (I think quite wrongly) on John 10:30-35 as if the Lord Jesus is identifying Himself as a similar kind of lesser "god" just as the "gods" of Psalm 82.  But as I was listening to him make his presentation this morning, I caught that he was quoting from the NWT.  And as he read it again, something struck my attention.  I pulled up the passage on my Tungsten T3 (which, of course, aside from having the LDS Scriptures installed, likewise has the NWT), and discovered the following translation of John 10:35:  "If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified...."  See what I see?  The NWT translates "pros" as "against."  About the only reason I can see for this rather unusual translation is that the "translators" are providing their interpretation: the word of God came "against" these "gods," i.e., the "gods" of Psalm 82 are, in fact, false judges.  The NWT seemingly sees Psalm 82 as being "against" those who are called gods, and this could only refer to a concept of judgment (and in that case, they are right in their understanding of Psalm 82).  But this is not the use being made by Mr. Stafford.  I found it ironic that a plain reading of his own translation militates against his own interpretation (but supports mine). 

The Irrationality of the Left
     I hear Rosie O'Donnell joined the growing anarchy movement.  You can't listen to the media these days without hearing the left (and the middle) spitting in God's face.  Surely, "the wrath of God is being revealed (present tense) from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Romans 1:18).  The culture wars seem to be little more than a rear-guard action these days.  The intention of the original founders of the nation are, functionally, irrelevant.  Transcendent morality has been banished from public dialogue as any thought that God may have in fact revealed His truth on such issues is considered offensive and un-American.  Most "conservatives" are fighting a losing battle, for they themselves have lost the will to say, "Yes, there is a right and a wrong, it is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of revelation, and the choices you make on these things do impact me and my family, so I will not sit quietly by while you rape and pillage my society."  The time is long past for the guts to start telling it like it is: that it is Christianity that is under attack, and that it is intolerance of God's law and rulership that is now the orthodox dogma of the irrational left. 
     Jesus Christ, the Creator of all things, told us that from the beginning marriage was between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-9).  This reflects God's sovereign rulership and His intention and purpose in creation.  Men and women who hate God and His law seek every opportunity to twist the Creator/creation relationship.  Paul described this very twistedness in Romans 1 as a sign of judgment from God.  What we are seeing is the open, unrestrained rebellion of sinners against God's truth.  Having been turned over to their hearts' desires, they long to see every semblance of God's law wiped from their world.  When man's laws represent God's (as in the definition of marriage as a man and a woman, united together) they seek to eradicate this silent, but ever-oppressive reminder of the God they hate, but cannot destroy. 
     God bless America: with soul-shaking, tear-producing, behavior altering repentance.

2/28/04:  What Review?
     Evidently some folks think a quick listing of "random thoughts" upon seeing the Passion movie is a "review."  Please.  Take a blog for what it is: a blog.  It is amazing to me how folks will look at two paragraphs here and ignore four hours of commentary on the Dividing Line, including the playing of clips, etc., and jump to simply silly conclusions.  Earth to evangelicals: be slow to speak, quick to hear. :-)
     Personally, outside of noting the content of a book I've ordered from a Roman Catholic publisher regarding the film and its meaning from the Catholic perspective, I've had enough of the film talk.  Let's all go see the Gospel of John...if you can find it playing somewhere.  Or how about just reading the passion narratives in a parallel fashion and, following that up with Ephesians 5 and Hebrews 7-10.  Yeah, that's the ticket!

2/27/04:  Someone Stop the E-mail!
Ack, sorry, I can't believe I missed yesterday.  Well, no apologies.  I could have blogged something, but I invested that time in taking my kids to a late lunch.  There I informed my son that I'm dedicating my next book to him in celebration of God's grace in his life in his baptism last summer, and then I told my daughter that I will be dedicating the book after that to her in light of her upcoming baptism (date not yet determined).  And you know what, having lunch with my two wonderful kids was just too enjoyable to do anything else. 
     I've hardly had time to get anything done today (e-mail is going to kill me), but I did just happen to scroll down the AR-Talk list and run into the following quotation from a secular scholar. 

Like Wise and his colleagues, while the Passantinos call their counter-cult colleagues on the carpet for 'slandering' such evangelical luminaries as James Dobson, Robert Schuller, or John Wimber, no such outrage is expended on Jack Chick, Dave Hunt, or James White for their often egregious distortions of Roman Catholicism...(Bearing False Witness? An Introduction to the Christian Counter-cult Douglas E. Cowan (Praeger, 2003), p. 198.

You know, just because someone is an accredited scholar doesn't mean they have a clue when it comes to the most basic of facts.  Isn't it ironic to see such a ridiculous parallel between my writings and those of Jack Chick and Dave Hunt?  I've written and asked for documentation.  We shall see what kind of response comes back.  Sure does make you wonder why you bother to be careful in your study of what others believe when folks like this will say things like this anyway.  But then again, the reason to be truthful is you serve He who is the truth anyway.  I'll let Him sort it out in the end.  :-)

Passion News:  I've seen this a few times now.  The interview is found here.  Take it for what it is worth.

Jim Caviezel: The catharsis for me to play this role was through Medjugorje, through Gospa. In preparation, I used all that Medjugorje taught me. Mel Gibson and I were going every day for Mass together. Some days I couldn’t go for Mass, but I was receiving the Eucharist. Somewhere along the line, I heard that the Pope was going for confession every day, so I thought that I should go for confession as often as possible. I didn’t want the Lucifer to have any control over the performance. We have sins of commission, but also sons of commission. My sin of omission continuously is that I don’t love enough. So, the confession was the preparation for the Eucharist. Ivan Dragicevic and his wife Lorraine gave me a piece of the true cross. I kept this on me all the time. They made a special pocket in my clothes for it. I also had relics of Padre Pio, St. Anthony of Padoua, Ste Maria Goretti, and saint Denisius, the Patron saint of Actors. Another thing was fasting. I read many of the messages continuously. Every day everyone could see me with the rosary in my hands.

2/25/04:  Random Thoughts on The Passion
     OK, saw it.  Random thoughts time.  Hopefully something more coherent will develop by the time of the Dividing Line tomorrow morning.
     1)  When Jesus said "I AM" to the soldiers, they fell back upon the ground.  Why on EARTH delete that even when Jesus says "I am"?  2)  "It is accomplished" and "It is finished" are not, in the context of the atonement, the same things.  3)  Jesus was wearing clothing when He came out of the grave.  *Not* the way to end.  4)  The apostles addressed Mary as "Mother"?  5)  Mary had supernatural knowledge even prior to the coming of the Spirit?  6)  Relics, relics, and more relics (straight out of Emmerich). Stations of the cross, "St. Veronica," the whole nine yards.  7)  We might well see the founding of the Roman Anti-defamation League as a result of this.  8)  What on EARTH was that hideous baby thing in the devil-woman's arms?  9)  Most, but not all, of the overt Roman Catholic elements were kept at the  "subtle enough not to catch the mind of the evangelical, prominent enough to assure the Roman Catholic that all is well" level.  10)  The emotional element was not quite as strong as I expected, but then again, I have never gone into a film more primed to be watching it closely, so I am hardly a meaningful barometer.  Besides, I'm Scottish.  11)  Will I think of this film at the next Lord's Supper?  Probably.  12)  Will I envision Jesus as Jim Caviezel?  No.  Not for a moment.  Not once during the film did I make that connection.  That was Jim Caviezel up there, not my Lord.  13)  Will the emotions over-run commitment to the why of the cross, leaving people emotionally committed to whatever traditional lens through which they viewed the film?  For many, yes.  14)  Does the film open the door for proselytization of "evangelicals" by zealous Roman Catholics?  Yes and no.  Outside of the unbiblical and extraneous Marian elements, the issues are what they were before the film was released, and, sadly, evangelicals remain just as ignorant of the importance of sound doctrine regarding God's purposes in the atonement as they were before.  This just opens up more opportunities either for that ignorance to be corrected, or, negatively, to be taken advantage of.  15)  Could an evangelical successfully "filter out" the extraneous stuff?  I suppose so, but it would take a conscious effort. 
     So, to see or not to see?  Tough call.  It is culturally relevant.  A person who has seen it is in better position to speak to its issues than one who has not.  On the other hand, it is not nearly as accurate as we were told; it is truly a prize for Rome, and it may well bother many believers with its portrayal and presentation.  If you go, don't go because of the herd mentality.  Go realizing what you are seeing, or don't go at all.

Man, I Feel Like I Missed a Celebration
     Yeah, yeah, I'm going to see the film....but can we talk about something else a second?  I've been re-doing my personal info page, mainly because though I enjoyed sharing things about my personal life (hobbies and the like), I have had to remove that material.  Far too many unfriendly folk in the world today, it seems.  Anyway, I have been listing publications and the like, and just finished a complete listing of my debates, and lo and behold, I had thought I was going to be doing my 50th in April, when in point of fact, my debate against Greg Stafford in Tampa was my 50th!  It had counted 49!  I feel like I missed my birthday or something.  Now I'll have to wait till 100 to celebrate by maybe stopping at Taco Time and having an extra Crisp Meat Burrito or something....

2/23/04:  The Flood Continues....
     The flood of Passion discussion is overwhelming.  You can't even keep up with it anymore.  I'm glad I got started on it months ago.  :-)  Please note the article posted below; for Reformed Baptists you may wish to listen to Pastor A.N. Martin's sermon from Trinity Baptist on this topic as well.  There is stuff coming out now that is hard to believe, especially about the comments being made by Jim Caviezel, the actor who portrays Christ, that Mary "made" the film for Jesus.  It is hard to even confirm the sources, so massive is the "buzz."  Many of you have seen Andy Webb's article on why he will not see the film.  Kevin Johnson has responded to it with one of the most pro-Roman Catholic, confused, and simply depressing replies I have seen thus far.  I will be responding to it tomorrow on the DL.  Please note: The Dividing Line will begin at 4:30PM MST tomorrow and will go for 90 minutes.  Please note this!

Also, please note two more things:  1)  There's a new Angel cartoon down below, one which illustrates tremendously the fact that Angel listens carefully to debates.  I really appreciate that.  2)  Please pray for the folks at Grace Reformed Baptist Church, the home of Calvary Press.  Their offices, and many books, were destroyed by fire a week ago Sunday, and that includes The Potter's Freedom.  We are having to take The Potter's Freedom into "back-ordered" status until Calvary Press can recover from this malicious damage and get the book back into availability.

No, It's Not Out, Yet...But It's Coming...
     Just happened to run across the cover to the book on ecclesiology that is coming out later this year.  I defended the plurality of elders in this work. There are four other views (I guess that's why the title speaks of "Five Views") and, most interestingly for most of our readers, Dr. Robert Reymond presented the Presbyterian view.  Our interaction should be most interesting.  We'll be carrying it, of course.

2/22/204:  Southern Hospitality
     Just a quick note as I try to get caught up from my Atlanta trip.  Met some great folks, even a few folks from channel.  Here's a little picture.  From left to right, using our IRC nicks (to protect the not-so-innocent) we have redgoatee, RDD, DrOakley, johnMark, and XB6.  skyman drove down with his lovely wife, but didn't hang around for the picture, and TheHinge visited Sunday morning as well.  Had a great time, and am very appreciative of the folks at Faith Community Church, especially Shane and Joel, for all their work, and to Jeremy for having the vision to bring it about.

Well, I got my e-mail back up and running, and what do I find but someone from "semper-reformanda.com" blowing the proverbial fuse.  Somehow (please, don't ask me how), this "Calvinist" read my tremendously brief comments in response to the Diane Sawyer interview (evidently nothing else I had said about the film), ignored everything I have ever said (repeatedly, as in over and over and over again) in print (in at least five books), on the Dividing Line over the years, in debates, in preaching, not only on the Passion issue, but on the entire issue of God's decrees, man's reponsibility, compatibilism, etc...i.e., ignored everything I've ever done...and comes to the conclusion that I am denying the culpability of the secondary means (i.e., Herod, Pontius, Pilate, etc. in Acts 4, Joseph's brothers in Genesis 50) and laying it all at God's doorstep by saying God was the one who killed Jesus.  Here's the article.  The writer even goes so far as to quote Boettner on such a basic issue!  Truly unbelievable.  Many thanks for FJ De Angelis for his kind encouragement (no, of course he didn't bother asking me about it before posting it) and deep insights.  Folks like you make tire sales in Alaska look very appealing. 

On a much more insightful note, Chad Bresson has written an excellent article on the film, having seen it himself.  It is filled with very helpful links and the like.  I have posted it "extra-blog" here.

2/19/04:  Off to Atlanta!
     OK, here we go.  Hit the calendar for details if you are planning on joining us in Woodstock, GA this weekend.  Lord willing we'll be back to ye olde blog on Monday.  But as we head out, we just got confirmation on two debates for Friday, April 2, and Saturday, April 3rd at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.  Friday night I'll be debating LDS author Dr. S. Michael Wilcox on the subject, "Are Temples Consistent with the New Testament?" (for those on the East Coast, Latter-day Saints build special buildings they call "temples" in which sacred ordinances, required for exaltation to godhood, are performed). Then on Saturday night I will be debating the head of the Sacred Light of Christ Metropolitan Community Church, Dee Bradshaw on the topic, "Does the Bible Support Gay Marriage?"  I'll get contact numbers, location, directions, and the like when I get back from Atlanta and can update the calendar.  With the debate on Long Island May 20th against Gary Michuta, and another scheduled to coincide with our cruise and conference in early November, we are on course for another busy year on the front lines!

Oh, and since I'm headed to Georgia...
      The senator from Georgia, Zell Miller, delivered an address on the floor of the Senate recently.  It is a must read.  Not that there are many with ears to hear any longer.  Law has been overthrown by the King-Priests of the judiciary who think themselves free of the law's constraints.  The anarchy that can ensue from this judicial revolution is now being seen outside the courthouse in San Francisco.  I am thankful there is a divine law to which every single one of those judges will be held, aren't you?

2/18/04:  Da Cruise, Da Cruise, Da Cruise!
     OK, that's a pitiful recreation from Fantasy Island, but hey, it works.  Look to the right, over there --->  see the link about the cruise?  FOLLOW IT!  This cruise is being scheduled only eleven months after the last one, so we gotta get moving!  Tired of hearing about how much fun everyone gets to have, all the fellowship, the teaching?  Then sign up!  (8-D
     Hey, great news on the publishing front!  I was able to communicate my concerns, and especially the real "heart" of the book I am finishing right now, to my publisher, and they have dropped the title that would have been really bad, and gone with one I really like.  Lord willing the Fall catalog from Bethany House will contain Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible's Accuracy, Authority, and Authenticity.  This book was conceived many years ago, but kept getting put back by other projects.  And now it is taking final shape. 
     Finally, I got a complaint from a fellow who claims to edit audio for PCA ministers about the line below, "The great question is not what will you do with Jesus Christ, my friend.  It is what will Christ do with you?"  I was informed that none of the ministers he knows would ever say anything like that.  Well, irony of ironies, I first heard that line from R.C. Sproul, and yes, Dr. Sproul is listed as a PCA minister.  Ah well, you can't please everyone!

2/17/04:  Who Killed Jesus?
    Isn't it amazing that this is the big question today because of the Gibson film?  And isn't it even more amazing that the early church, long before the first gospel was written or the first epistle penned, knew the answer?  And isn't it just sad that most evangelicals don't even believe what the Bible says about it anymore, and refuse to consider what it really means?  Here's the answer, folks, for anyone who wants to know:

Acts 4:27-28 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸ to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Answer to the question?  God did it.  It's no mystery.  The early Christians had bothered to listen to what God had inspired seven centuries earlier:

Isaiah 53:4
Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.

Smitten of God.  There's the truth.  Let's start telling folks: God had His Son nailed to a tree, and no, it wasn't so that you could decide if you'd like Him to be your Savior.  He did so to redeem His people, and if you do not repent and believe, you will not be among those people.  But do not be mistaken: if you continue in your hard heartedness, your unbelief will not cause His failure.  All that the Father has entrusted to the Son will receive eternal life.  The great question is not what will you do with Jesus Christ, my friend.  It is what will Christ do with you?

A Completely Disgusting Hit Piece
     We should probably get used to it.  If it is associated with ABC, it will be as anti-Christian as it can possibly be.  And so it was tonight, after the interview with Gibson on ABC.  The local affiliate, notoriously one of the worst in the Phoenix area as far as news coverage is concerned, presented what it called an "investigation" into Concerned Christians, a Christian organization that seeks to witness to Mormons.  But how anyone could possibly call this a piece of journalism or an "investigation" I cannot begin to imagine.  It wasn't just biased, it was grossly twisted.  Tiny little short snippets were isolated from hours and hours of video tape secretly filmed in churches, used completely out of context, leaving the substance of the comparison of Mormon teaching and Christian truth completely out in the cold.  And then they brought in four Mormon women, utterly without the slightest standing in regards to the LDS Church, to display their emotional dislike of snippets of Robertson's teaching, all the while throwing about buzz-words like "hate."  It was an utterly disgusting display of yellow journalism at its worst.  I guess they felt left out after the "big boys in New York" went after Gibson.  In any case, be prepared for more of this in the future.  It is "good TV" to mock the idea that there is such a thing as Christian truth, and anti-Christian error.

2/16/04 On the Subject of the Passion Movie
     Everyone is talking about it, as expected.  I preached a sermon on it a few months ago, and this past Sunday I sort of "updated" our folks at PRBC on more recent developments.  Here is the sermon for streaming, here for downloading; here is the more recent Sunday School lesson for streaming, here for saving. 
     I'm heading for Atlanta this weekend, discussing the translation issue Friday night, and the all-out assault on justification Saturday morning, and then preaching Sunday morning before flying home.  See the calendar for details.
     l0g0s has pulled all the materials relevant to the recent discussions on the objectivity of the covenant, Galatians 2, and the like.  See the entry for Feb. 16 here.  It sounds like an apology as I read it.  But one is not required.  Possibly others have engaged in this debate for personal reasons, but I have not.  Many have asked me why I would bother posting material relevant to it here when we have an audience with much wider interests than the debate over the objectivity of the covenant and baptism.  In case anyone missed it, my reasons were stated very early on: yes, I believe there are dire results in reference to apologetics and the proclamation of the gospel to Roman Catholics and others.  But more basic is the issue of the perspicuity of Scripture and the role of hermeneutics and exegesis in the church's life and ministry.  It was the claim, early on, made by TGE, that we could not go to the inspired text and determine if the passage in Galatians 2 was truly relevant to this issue facing the church that caused the strongest reaction from me.  That issue will not go away, even if we stop discussing it, and I don't think anyone needs to apologize for strongly believing what they believe on the topic.

2/14/04: More from the Sola Scriptura Book
     I mentioned a while back that I am really working hard to finish this book for Bethany House, and that I would try to post little snippets.  Here's today's snippet:

Just as God’s saving grace instructs those it saves, so too the Word of God trains, instructs, disciplines believers as they seek to live in the realm or sphere of righteousness.  We are not accustomed to such living when we first come to Christ, of course, and hence must be instructed “in righteousness,” and this the man of God can do on the basis of the God-breathed Scriptures.  The modern reader should pay close attention to what this means in our context: God’s Word is able to provide us with the foundation for sound ethical and moral action and thought.  We can live in righteousness when we are willing to receive exhortation and instruction from Scripture.  Given the wholesale abandonment of the Bible as the source for our knowledge of how we as Christians are to live (accompanied by the rush to human philosophies and mechanisms), these words need to be heard once again in the professing church.

2/13/04:  The Lull Before the Storm
   Hear those crickets?  Yeah, it's quiet.  The books have shipped (and I'm sure they were busy at The Berean Call as well), but they are still in transit.  Won't be hitting the bookstores for a while, either.  Hence, the calm before the storm.  :-)
     Joined Paul Edwards for an hour on his program in Detroit today (www.ontheword.net) to talk about Roman Catholic apologetics.  He's been hit with folks saying he should have me on with this person or that: ironically, just about everyone his listeners have suggested won't debate me anyway.  None of them called in.  Odd.
     Hey, the blog wars are over!  w00t!  And TGE won.  Or so he says.  I'm a bit confused, though (being a babdist does that): at first I was told that he wouldn't engage in exegesis of Gal. 2 because it wasn't fair because I teach Greek and all; then, during the exchanges, I was faulted for not responding to every nitpicking comment because I have two books coming out, one I'm writing, and numerous other publications in the works; but now at the end we hear about how nothing of substance has been offered in response to this long list of articles TGE has written.  Hey, could someone quit moving the goal posts?  Anyway, he is off to build the Second Christendom in the space-time world.  Lord bless him.

2/12/04:  Discerning Reader Weighs In
     OK, obviously, they are not unbiased (click here).  However, no one can question their passion.  So, in obedience to the wisdom of Proverbs 27:2:

Bravo to our fellow Oregonians at Multnomah Publishers! First, for the integrity they have shown by canceling a second edition of Dave Hunt's "What Love Is This?" — one of the worst books to have ever come off an evangelical printing press. Second, for providing a forum for James White to demolish Mr. Hunt's caricatured "Calvinism" with such force that only the spiritually deaf, dumb and blind will be left to scour the remains. James White is a champion of Biblical Orthodoxy — maintaining the "pattern of sound words" handed down from the Apostles in the face of its foolish perversion by the likes of Mr. Hunt. A must read — especially for those who have been misled by Dave Hunt, Chuck Smith, Tim LaHaye and others in what has to be one of the most notorious theological hoaxes of our generation.
The Discerning Reader

Engrish.com Comes Home
     I installed a silly device in my cell phone today.  I wanted to share with you all the instructions. 
Take down the phone (Do I have to put it up somewhere first?)
 --- screw out and then make the parts seperately (I have to make parts?)
install the phone -- finish the installation (thanks for the help)
Make the keyboard develops. (Wouldn't time do that?)
And make it fit with the holes.  Stick them.  (Brevity is good)
At last put into the battery and put on the back cover.  OK.  Success! (w00t!)

Online translators are SOOO much fun....

A Personal Word (Updated with non-irrelevancy clause added)
     Blogs are supposed to be sorta personal, and I do enjoy sharing some elements of my life here (though I also recognize the inherent danger of doing so in a public format when you have many folks who will twist your every word listening carefully).  So the following personal note I hope will be taken in the proper context. 
     This is a SMALL ministry.  See Rich and I?  That's the staff.  Period.  Yeah, a few volunteers help with e-mails, [and, having gotten in deep trouble for not having noted it in glowing language, I am grateful to them for their help, their support, and we wouldn't be able to do it without them, and they are the backbone of our non-paid help, and are truly great apologists on their own, and they work really hard, and....ok, you get the point] but that's it.  We've lived on a shoestring from the start, and unless I get PC real quick, we always will.  Yeah, we do big things with our small staff, but it takes a lot of work!  Anyway, that means that at times the two of us are simply going at Mach 3 with our hair on fire (I know, I know), and just one more "please, could you do this for me..." type request will be just enough to send either or both of us off to Alaska to open a tire store.  Both of us are going 12+ hours a day at the moment, he trying to keep up with a flood of orders, website issues, etc., and I with book deadlines and the like.  So, if you write me an e-mail, and I don't reply within five minutes, show some patience, please?  I don't have a secretary.  I have to respond to them myself.  And sometimes I just have to let them sit since it is a choice between "finish book, hopefully bless thousands vs. write an e-mail, delay book by six months."  And please realize, when you ask me to write you a small book, compile bibliographies, and in general function as your on-line personal research assistant, the chances of your getting a reply will diminish proportionately.  It isn't personal.  It's that I have to prioritize my time, and how much time I will invest in folks outside of my church and my immediate ministry.  And remember, I make myself more available than almost anyone else I know of who does ministry similar to mine.  So I tend to need to go do forced reps on the incline bench to work off the frustration when folks complain that I won't drop important research just to "minister to their needs" in the time-frame they ask and in the manner they demand. 
     There, I feel better.  (8-D

OK, OK
     Even a Sensa Cloud Nine pen could not keep my poor right hand from getting just a tad upset with me as I ploughed through all but the last 40 books that need to be signed.  We managed to get 54 out the first day.  I'll get the rest done tomorrow before the DL, I hope, anyway.  Also, on the DL today....I will be doing what I suggested below: reading through Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans.  Now, I know, some of you might yawn at such a thought.  That's fine.  When you've seen as many starry-eyed converts to Romanism cite that letter as if Ignatius was a post-Trentian believer in transubstantiation as I have, you'll see the importance.  Besides, where on the net will you ever hear such a discussion except on the DL?  So gird up thy loins and join us.  Now, for the ultra-Geeky (and ultra-Greeky), the Greek text is on line here.  But for those who want the plain ol' English version, here is what you need.  Fire up your browser, get the text, and join us on the DL today at 11AM MST.

2/10/04: Remind Me Sometime...
     Last night in class we went over Ignatius' epistle to the Smyrnaeans.  Someone remind me on a future edition of the DL to go over the first six sections in reference to the gross abuse of this material by Roman Catholic apologists (and those deceived by them).  I could post the text here on the website, or a link to the ccel.org reference, and that way everyone could access the text while I went over it.  Anyone who has worked with converts who, with stars in their eyes, talk about how Ignatius gave testimony to transubstantiation, would find such a discussion useful.

It's Big, It's Thick, It's Sorta Fluffy
     I am referring to Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views, a single rushed author's copy of which just arrived UPS at my office.  It is thick (427 pages), but it is typeset rather loosely (i.e., considerably less text on a page than most of the books I am accustomed to reading, or writing), hence my description as "fluffy."  As to the content, well, I have to leave that to the readers to decide.  If you are a regular listener to the Dividing Line, you've heard the arguments before.  Hopefully many people who would otherwise never hear about the freedom and power of God's grace will hear and believe as a result of this book.

Warning: This book may well contain doctrines removed from the space-time world which have been influenced by every possible form of Greek philosophy, and may lead to a severe infection of Donatism and Radical Anabaptist Objectivist Pure Exegesis Syndrome. 

2/9/04:  A Thought
     Paul once said we see through a glass darkly.  A paraphrase of the concept might be that our vision, like one upon the valley floor, is greatly limited.  As time-bound creatures we live in a tremendously small "slice of time," the same concept God tries to teach us by describing our lives like a vapor that appears and then vanishes away, like the grass that sprouts in the morning dew and is gone by the arrival of the mid-day sun.  Not a one of us can ever call God to account for His actions given our puny knowledge and infinitesimal length of existence.  How much more, then, should we be grateful for the gift of His truth in His Word, and should approach it with trembling fear and thankfulness, and should despise the very thought of questioning it in a manner inappropriate in light of our nature over against its unchanging and eternal verity.  As the Psalmist wrote,

Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven...The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting. (Psalm 119:89, 160)

A Useful, Relevant Sermon
     Delivered by my fellow elder Don Fry at PRBC on the Lord's day.

Angel took a brief vacation (actually, he's busy teaching the munchkins at his church), but Tuesday's DL stirred the creative juices, and when that happens....well, look out!  If the above makes no sense to you, you 1) didn't listen to the BAM debate and hear question after question fly off into never-never land without being addressed, or 2) you haven't listened to the DL since then.

2/8/04:  Ignatius to the Ephesians
     I am currently teaching Development of Patristic Theology Through Augustine for GGBTS, and we are reading through Ignatius. Last week we read this section:

For there are some who maliciously and deceitfully are accustomed to carrying about the Name while doing other things unworthy of God. You must avoid them as wild beasts. For they are made dogs that bite by stealth; you must be on your guard against them, for their bite is hard to heal. (2) There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Ignatius to the Ephesians 7:1-2)

Of course, the final section is one of the most amazing descriptions of the dual nature of Christ to be found in the Apostolic Fathers, and it stands as a tremendous testimony to the early date of the highest forms of Christology. But we noted that this in-depth Christological statement is actually used in the context of exhortation to the Ephesians to stand against false teachers and heretics. This means Ignatius assumed the readers of his epistle, the believers at Ephesus, would be able to understand and follow the exhortation. Is it not sad that such a description would be lost on a large portion of modern evangelicalism, and that mainly due to the idea that you should not challenge your listeners to move forward in their understanding of God's truth? "Seekers" (John 6:24/65-66, Romans 3:11) are more interested in having their "felt needs met" than they are applying themselves to understand the Incarnation, the relationship of the divine and human in Christ, and to see this as important in detecting and refuting false teachers who eat away at the fabric of every church that loses sight of what is truly important. If you attended services today in a church where God's truth was proclaimed without compromise, rejoice and be thankful. In fact, take time to give thanks to the Lord, and say something kind to your pastor and elders. And as Ignatius reminded us long ago, be on your guard against the wild beasts.

"holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these" (2Ti 3:5).  The masculine plural participle e;contej has as its referent the "men" of v. 2; hence, the vice list in 2-4 refers to men who "hold" a "form" mo,rfwsij of godliness but they have denied (hvrnhme,noi, perfect tense over against present) the power of godliness.  This would refer to a settled attitude on their part (illustrated by the preceding ungodly attitudes and behaviors). We would have solid ground, then, to note the opposite: the true power of godliness will result, as Paul told Titus, in grace teaching us to live a godly life (Titus 2:11-14).  Paul commands Timothy to purposefully avoid interaction and communion with such men (avpotre,pomai).  Such would require the identification of such men (Romans 16:17).  (If you cannot see the Greek fonts, click here).

On the less encouraging side of things...I get the feeling this is a reply, of sorts...

Wait a minute. Yes, I do see the problem. This type of understanding eliminates the ability of a lot of today's Really and Truly Legitimately Regenerate Reformed People Gospel Pharisees to maintain their legalistic, man-made requirement for obtaining justification. You know, that works-righteousness requirement of intellectually comprehending the capital-d Doctrine of capital-s, capital f Sola Fide. Not to mention their impressive ability to on-the-spot invent new pretzel-like hoops of question-begging, fear, suspicion, and self-righteousness in response to all the insidious Super-Ultimate Threats to The Doctrines of Grace that lying idolators keep coming up with because they hate the truth and can't stand to have their deeds of darkness exposed to the perspicuous Scriptures, Objectively Exegeted by the Approved Caste of Evangelical Seminary-Trained Spiritual Scientists.

Yeah, that's a pretty big problem, alright. Thankfully the perspicuous Scriptures describe the solution: Stand piously in the temple thanking God you aren't like those poor deluded sinners, repetitiously intone mantras about the purity of one's lineage, and crucify the Truth so that the Roman(ists) don't come and take away your city and your heritage.

Yeah, I'm the one attacking others. :-) I await Mr. Johnson's open letter to Mr. Enloe with baited breath. I expect it to arrive around the time the Arizona Cardinals win the Super Bowl, the Suns win the NBA Championship, the Coyotes win the Stanley Cup, and it stays below 100 all the way from June through August in Phoenix.
     Who would have thought, just a few years ago, that we would have been hearing someone who was not a part of the Roman Catholic apologetics world railing like this about "solafidians"?  Well, I'm thankful I know a bunch of true brothers and sisters more than happy to be painted as a "solafidian."  And I'll keep talking about how one will never exercise the "fides" of "sola fide" unless enabled by the work of the Spirit (monergism vs. synergism), how that faith is never an "alone faith," an "empty faith," a faith incapable of demonstrating its existence, but is a living faith, one that flows from a changed heart, a changed nature, resulting in a zealous desire to glorify God by walking in good works (James 2, Ephesians 2, Titus 2).  Call these intellectual doctrines if you must, but I dare you to try to explain to anyone how they are to live so as to glorify Christ without providing the very same objective basis in God's revealed truth.
     Do note one thing: when responding to TGE yesterday I focused upon specific propositions and facts; in response we have nothing but sarcastic ad-hominem (literally pages of it now, including constant mockery of the exegesis of the text of Scripture, incessant inaccurate caricaturization, etc.). Seemingly, for some, that is the most substantive reply that can be given, and it covers over all the inability to respond to the factual issues (like refuting false accusations by giving specifics and even URL's where the facts can be ascertained).

2/7/04:  Reformed Baptist Heresies Exposed!
     TGE replied to my corrections of his statements about me, and answered the question whether my view of baptism is, in fact, as heretical as Rome's doctrine of the Mass.  An important exchange anyone concerned about AAPCism, NPism, and the entire "Reformed Catholic" movement, needs to read.  Click here, and be prepared.  After posting this, Kevin Johnson wrote a passionate Open Letter in response.  Let me summarize:  I'm a very mean man.  Let the reader decide.  (8-D

Also, please do not faint, lose control of your car, or otherwise experience excessive shock, but I updated the calendar, a little.  The info for my next trip is now included, a run down to the Atlanta area February 20-21.  Click here.

Wisdom from an Ancient Writer
     We don't know the name of this ancient believer, but his letter to Diognetius is soaked in Pauline phraseology and theology.  Ponder these words penned so long ago:

This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life... (Mathetes to Diognetius, Chapter 9).

2/6/04:  Gay Marriage and God's Law
     We spent some time on Thursday's DL talking about the recent "decision" (hard to call such obvious judicial chicanery and despotism a "decision" since that assumes some basis can be found in law, and in this situation, the state constitution) by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts forcing the complete overthrow of the institution of marriage by utter redefinition.  This revolutionary action, accomplished by judges who refuse to operate within the realm of law or abide by the intentions of the founding fathers of this nation, is clear evidence of the depth of the decay of the moral fabric of the nation.  One cannot help but remember the inspired words of Scripture, "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18).  When men are this brazen in their hatred of God's right to rule over His creation morally, one knows that Scripture is being fulfilled:  "For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

2/5/04:  Odd Things I've Heard Today
Real briefly today: two odd, odd things I saw this morning.  First, TGE was confusing "New Covenant Theology" with various other viewpoints he doesn't like, and in the process said,

The Incarnation means the SPACE TIME world is IMPORTANT, which therefore means that BODY is important, which therefore means that RITUAL is important, which therefore means that theology that downplays these things in favor of "spiritual" things is WRONG. No matter how many prooftexts it appeals to, it's WRONG. And when that wrongness is coupled with a radical refusal to even recognize other people's baptisms--even those of one's fellow Protestants!--it becomes a kind of "gnostic" flight out of the physical world, every bit as idolatrous and heretical as many things it itself condemns.

Hmm...since this was said about "Baptists" in general, for some odd reason, let me just say again: the Incarnation is important; God's Word addresses the entirety of life; rituals are important if God's Word says they are, but just because it is a ritual that you invest spiritual meaning in doesn't mean I have to think it is important; baptism is defined by Scripture, which you don't seem to think is perspicuous enough any longer to even address the issue; if I am convinced by the Scriptures that there is a proper ground and means of baptism, upon what basis should your opinions and traditions over-ride my convictions?; "gnostic" is a lovely buzz-insult but given that I know what the gnostics believed, having a biblical view of baptism and being under the authority of Scripture before tradition in obedience to Christ's command does not make me a gnostic; do you really, really think my view on baptism is "every bit as idolatrous and heretical" as the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice that perfects no one for whom it is made?  If so, upon what basis?
     Yes, that's as brief as I can be.  (8-D
     Second item that makes you want to stick bamboo shoots under your fingernails came from one of the most brilliant scholars on the planet (at least that's the impression I always get from reading his comments) posted on an apologetics list.  While condescendingly demonstrating his deep and exhaustive knowledge of all things theological, and rebuking the concerns shown by backwoods American evangelicals regarding the inroads being made by NPism (primarily through the writings of NT Wright), and assuring us that even the most well-trained scholars really don't have a handle on these things yet (remember, fundamentally, this means we have no idea, really, if we have peace with God because Christ's righteousness is ours or not...ponder that one for a moment and mourn for the state of "Christian scholarship" in general) we were informed, "I don't consider the discussion about the New Perspective to be an apologetic issue at all, and thus it is outside the focus of this list.  I see it solely as an issue for biblical studies and theology."  Now mind you, I'm a nobody to this writer, an ignorant person utterly without standing, but even I can figure out what this means.  This person (and he is surely not alone: this is the attitude that gave rise to How Wide the Divide?) rejects the intimate connection between apologetics and biblical studies and theology.  I obviously hold a different view of apologetics.  I see apologetics as a biblical mandate of elders in the church (to my knowledge, this scholar is not an elder, Titus 1:5-9); I see it deriving its very essence from a sound biblical theology. In fact, I do not believe a sound apologetic exists outside of first arriving at a sound biblical theology that then gives rise to the apologetic (one of the primary problems with many in popular apologetics).  But a sound theology will demand obedience, and its view of truth will demand an apologetic.  NPism involves a radical reductionistic view of the gospel itself, and of justification in particular.  It's monochromatic disemboweling of historic Reformed theology is just as apologetic in nature as anything the Council of Trent had to say and, due to its origin, maybe more so.  When justification can be moved en toto from soteriology to ecclesiology (it was always ecclesiastically vital, but that due to the fact that soteriology determines ecclesiastical participation) you are obviously altering the basic message that is preached.  How that can be considered to be separate from apologetics, I cannot begin to understand.  But, that may well be due to the fact that I am obviously a dolt and will always be a dolt because I do not spend my every day in the hallowed realms of the Academy.  I actually have to invest time and energy in the real world of ministry, the church, teaching, not only of seminary students, but of kids and laypeople and stuff like that which will forever preclude me from "getting it."  Ah, but I digress....

2/4/04:  A Note on The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich
     As most of you know, Mel Gibson carries in his pocket a "relic" from the Roman Catholic "visionary" and (eventually) saint Emmerich.  Some of the scenes and material found in The Passion of the Christ came from Emmerich's recording of her visions.  Here is the description of the book from its back cover:

THE DOLOROUS PASSION has been inspiring thousands since it first appeared in 1833—being based on the detailed visions of Our Lord’s Passion and Death as seen by Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), a German Augustinian nun, and recorded by Clemens Brentano, a prominent literary figure of the day. A saintly person from her youth and a great mystic and victim soul, Sister Emmerich was privileged by God during almost a lifetime of ecstatic visions to see all the events of Our Lord’s suffering and death, which visions we can now understand in hindsight were a great gift from God to the world. Her account of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, while faithful to the Bible, is heart-rending, edifying and surprising—because of its intimate detail. THE DOLOROUS PASSION recounts with incredible precision the horrendous sufferings undergone by our Saviour in His superhumanly heroic act of Redemption. Also illuminating is its description of Mary’s participation in the sufferings of her Son, so that this book gives the reader a poignant understanding of why Our Lady is often called our “Co­Redemptrix” and “Queen of Martyrs.” THE DOLOROUS PASSION is a singular book that conveys a lasting impression of the terrible Agony of Our Lord, of His infinite love for us that motivated His Agony, and how his Passion and Death were brought on by each person’s sins. Here is a book that gives one a holy feeling just to read it. Here is a book that will melt a heart of stone!

Prediction.  Fast forward three years.  EWTN's "Coming Home Network" show.  Some former "evangelical" woman is on the screen, and she says, "Well, I had never even thought of the Catholic faith, until I saw The Passion film, and I was so taken by the portrayal of Mary that I went looking on the web for more information, and found Anne Catherine Emmerich's book, The Dolorous Passion, and that is when I realized there was so much more to Mary than what I had been taught.  And then I found out sola scriptura isn't true and then I read Karl Keating's book and then...(fill in the rest with the standard template conversion story)."
     Do not forget John Piper's new book and the website: www.passion-book.com. 

Timely Words from Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

"There it is in the Bible; go and ask my Master why he put it there. I cannot help it. I am only a serving man, and I tell you the message from above. If I were a footman, I should not alter my master's message at the door. I happen to be an ambassador of heaven, and I dare not alter the message I have received. If it is wrong, send up to head-quarters. There it is, and I cannot alter it."

 

Paul's First Prayer, Sermon No. 16, March 25th 1855

On another front, boy did pointing out Hunt's error in his current newsletter earn me a few e-mails! Is this what Debating Calvinism is going to engender as well? If so, I'll need to buy asbestos gloves to wear while reading e-mail! But what was really amazing (and rather sad) was the fact that this person wrote an e-mail complaining about my comments about Hunt, and asking that I withdraw them. Now, note the language:

I'm a layman, but I know enough to know that what you posted yesterday was WRONG. Please consider my request to retract your statement.

As much as you have angered me with your posting, and as much as I have responded in kind, I ask you as a brother in Christ to do the right thing and refrain from contributing to the disinformation that so plagues Christendom today.

Yours respectfully,

Now, that's not too bad (despite the errors in his argumentation). But he mentioned his "low traffic" website, so, I thought to myself, "I wonder what he said on his site?" So I took a moment and tracked it down (he didn't give the address in his e-mail). Now, I'm warning you ahead of time, if you go there, prepare to read stuff like this:

When I read something of James White, I want to flush his head down the toilet, and then do it again.

Numerous other insults, the continuous use of "Whitey," etc., follow. This is the kind of "Christian brotherhood" this fellow promotes. But, here's a good insight into the kind of person that finds Dave Hunt's What Love is This? a convincing and useful work: http://www.vesselofhonour.com/

I knew the new book would bring out these kinds of folks, I just figured I'd have a few more weeks before they found my address. :-)

2/3/04:  The Arrow That Wasteth by Day
     It's so great to find various barbs cast your direction first thing in the morning, especially the morning after you teach for five hours straight (which, while tremendously enjoyable, is likewise very demanding).  I get to go from the sublime (sitting with bright students reading directly from the text of Ignatius last evening, noting, for example, his tremendous description of the two natures of Christ in the epistle to the Ephesians, and that in the middle of a practical exhortation to avoid false teachers, and making application to ministry today) to the ridiculous with hardly any period of consciousness in between!  To what do I refer?  Well, though I haven't even thought about Mark Shea for quite some time, I find the following on his blog:

James White: A Great and Brilliant Man

and he wants you to know it. Be sure to check out the modest cartoons and the heapin' helpin's of self-praise. "Pros Apologian", by the way, is Greek for "I know Greek and you don't." Salvation by Knowing Greek is a common tenet in some circles of Christian thought.

I guess he doesn't like Angel's caricature of me or something (what, like I drew it?  I can barely handle stick figures!).  Self-praise?  Oh, I understand: our chat channel's name is a Greek phrase.  That means we are saved by knowing Greek.  (Ah the wonders of Roman logic: very same process that gets you such wonderful dogmas as the Bodily Assumption of Mary).  I get the feeling someone is feeling a little under-prepared to actually deal with meaningful apologetic issues related to the text of Scripture, and this then provides an excuse for such nonsense? 
     Speaking of nonsense, Dave Hunt is not even waiting for the publication of Debating Calvinism to take his shots.  The February, 2004 edition of his newsletter includes a few rounds lobbed my direction, but more importantly, it contains the following amazing criticism of Rick Warren:

Warren justifies this fatalistic view from The Living Bible: "You [God]... scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe" (Ps 139:16)-not even close to what that verse actually says! Is every sinful thought and deed exactly what God has planned?! Men are not sinners but puppets if everything is exactly what God has decreed.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm no fan of The Purpose Driven Life, but isn't it amazing to see Dave Hunt criticizing the belief that God has ordained the length of our lives and the date of our death?  Has Hunt moved into Open Theism?  We know Open Theists do not believe God knows the day of our death, let alone does He ordain it.  It is so desperately sad to see those who profess the name of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth expressing such disdain and even hatred for God's sovereign decree!  The same can be said of George Bryson and everyone else who would rather have the creature, man, in control of the future than the all-wise all-knowing God!  Don't expect any meaningful interaction, by the way, from Hunt regarding the many texts of Scripture that teach God's unquestion-able sovereignty over human affairs in our upcoming book. 
     But, note as well Hunt's assertion that the Living Bible is in error in its rendering of the text.  The careful student of Open Theism has seen this before as well.  Those of you who have listened to my debate against one of the leading Open Theists, John Sanders, knows that this passage came up in cross-examination and, like Gregory Boyd, Sanders referred to the KJV's translation of the text, which reads:

Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

But compare the NASB:

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.

The KJV is simply in error here.  For some odd reason it ignores the Hebrew term yom, which is consistently translates as "day" elsewhere (I bet a quick scan of Hunt's website would find a number of examples where he would defend that very translation) and leaves it untranslated, inserting the odd phrase "my members."  Compare ASV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, etc.  I would love to have someone write to The Berean Call and ask him why he supports a translation that ignores the word "days"?  In reality, the Living Bible is here more accurate and literal in the rendering of the Hebrew word than is the KJV!  But, of course, it is "elitist" of us to even point this out.  J
     So, after giving aid and comfort to the Open Theists, Hunt says:

Clearly, there were no "elect" within Israel who alone were chosen for salvation. Salvation was offered to every Israelite without exception. That is why Calvinists avoid the Old Testament pictures of Christ's coming sacrifice (as James White does in my debate with him in book form: Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views - see offering list).

The irony is that Hunt does not see the problem in his own argument.  He limits his scope to Israel and seemingly claims the sin offerings were for everyone, as if a person who lacked faith even in the Old Covenant was somehow "covered" by this hypothetical atonement.  God had His remnant even amongst the godless people of Israel throughout her history.  But he seems completely blind to the more obvious issue: the sin offerings were only for the people of God, not for the whole world!  It is like Hunt and Bryson and others don't remember that there were millions of other folks living outside the borders of Israel.  The sacrifices, which pre-figured that of Christ, were not offered for them.  How much more obvious can this be?  Yet, as with so much else, tradition blinds the mind.  Hunt also opined:

James White avoids 1 Corinthians 10:2-4, as does Boettner. None of the 13 contributors to Still Sovereign touches it, and both MacArthur's Study Bible and Sproul's Geneva Study Bible ignore the obvious problem for Calvinism.

Remind me from now on to say "Dave Hunt avoids <fill in the blank>" each time I address any of the many, many passages or facts of biblical exegesis he missed in What Love is This?  And you know what is so incredibly hypocritical here?  There is no entry for 1 Corinthians 10 anywhere in the scripture index of his book!  Does that mean he "avoided it" himself?  "Ring.  Hello?  Mr. Kettle?  Mr. Pot on line two."
     But beyond this, I get the impression Hunt's dispensationalism is driving his hermeneutic yet once again.  He will indeed get different responses from Reformed folks on this passage, since how one views the New Covenant will impact how they see this passage.  As normal, Hunt doesn't tell us what he believes, nor does he defend his position; he simply says the passage is contradictory to Calvinism (shades of George Bryson: "Question is asked of Bryson"  "Well, you see, that's the problem with Calvinism....").  Hunt has no answer to the question.  I believe the mixed nature of the Old Covenant (elect with non-elect, regenerate with reprobate, Davids and Ahabs) is reflective of the fact that in the fellowship of the external church we have the same mixture, hence the constant exhortations and warnings addressed to those gathered in the public meetings.  The point Paul is making is that though all Israel had seen the miracles and experienced the supernatural activities of God, the vast majority of them were cast down in the wilderness due to unbelief.  Therefore, do not think mere association with the people of God is a substitute for belief.  I did not "avoid" the text as the text is not relevant to the issue of my book. 
     Wouldn't it be great for Dave Hunt to debate this issue publicly, so that questions like that can be answered directly in a period of cross-examination?  We think so too.  Hence our challenge to Mr. Hunt to debate stands. 

2/1/04:  Raised in a Christian Home?  Rejoice
     I was going to comment on some more material in Bryson's book, but I'll leave that for Tuesday evening's DL.  I'll content myself this Lord's Day evening with noting Paul's words to Timothy in 2 Tim. 3:14:  "You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them."  I grew up in a Christian family.  I heard about Christ, and the cross, and sang "The B I B L E" from my earliest days.  My first memories have to do with the faith, and some of my most precious recollections are connected with baptism, the church, and testifying of my faith in a public school.  I remember late night New Year's Eve prayer meetings, Christmas cantatas, Vacation Bible School, and Scripture memory drills.  I wonder if Timothy had similar, though culturally different, remembrances from his youth?
     I learned a few years ago that I have four great grand-parents who came here to the US from Scotland (hence my natural aversion to being hugged by strangers!).  In fact, one of those great grandparents was a Presbyterian minister who became a Baptist upon arriving in the US (now isn't THAT ironic?).  As far back as I've been able to determine on my father's side, there has been a continuous line of ministers. 
     I don't have one of those conversion stories that takes 35 minutes to relate and that gives you goose-bumps.  I wasn't saved out of drugs and sex and alcohol and gangs and the like.  The Lord was merciful to me at a very young age, so I never got into all of those things.  But as I consider Paul's words to Timothy, I rejoice.  I am so thankful for those who taught me God's truth.

Update on the above:  The redoubtable l0g0s read my comments above and actually had the temerity to twist my own experience into evidence of "Reformed covenant theology."  Is there no end to what his fertile imagination can come up with?  Seems not.  What my Baptist upbringing, including my parents teaching me about the cross, calling me to repentance and faith (a very bad no-no according to the AAPC speakers), a profession of faith, baptism following the profession, and growth in grace over time has to do with the idea of infant baptism joining me to a covenant outside of faith and repentance I haven't the foggiest.  Then again, this is the same fellow who can close his eyes so tightly to reality that the exegesis of Galatians 2 provided weeks ago on this blog just disappears into thin air, so we really shouldn't be overly surprised at the flights of his imagination.  Amazing, truly amazing.