God’s revelation, both externally in creation and internally within man’s conscience (for so I understand Paul’s intention) is so clear, so compelling, and so perspicuous, that man is left “without an apology,” i.e., without excuse (literally, a defense).  For though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks.  Two duties incumbent upon mankind as God’s creature:  to honor Him as God, that is, to show Him deference and to give to Him the fear, the respect, due to the Potter on the part of the pots.  And the second is to give thanks.  Men know they should thank God.  They know all good gifts come down from Him, and that they do not deserve the blessings they receive.  Men are held accountable to give God thanks, and to refuse to do so is to demonstrate the impact of sin upon the heart and mind: refusing to give thanks to God reflects a foolish, darkened heart and vain, futile speculation.
     It is no wonder, then, that giving of thanks is one of the most commonly noted results of regeneration itself: if it is natural for the creature to give thanks (outside the twisted opposition of sin), then it follows when a God-hater is turned to a God-lover, thanksgiving will flow from that redeemed heart.  As the Word reminds us:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.  (Phil. 4:6)

Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with [an attitude of] thanksgiving;  (Col. 4:2)

you will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God. (2Cor. 9:11)

Some Thanksgiving Humor (thanks, Jim Broyles!)

The Parrot
     A young man named Ray received a parrot as a gift.
     The parrot had a bad attitude and an even worse vocabulary. Every word out of the bird's mouth was rude, insulting, and laced with profanity. Ray tried and tried to change the bird's attitude by consistently saying only polite words, playing soft music, reading poetry, and anything else he could think of to "clean up" the bird's vocabulary. Finally, Ray was fed up and he yelled at the parrot. The parrot yelled back. Ray shook the parrot and the parrot got angrier and even ruder. Ray, in desperation, threw up his hands, grabbed the bird and put him in the freezer. For a few minutes the parrot squawked and kicked and screamed. Then suddenly there was total silence. Not a peep was heard for over a minute. Fearing that he'd hurt the parrot, Ray quickly opened the door to the freezer. The parrot calmly stepped out onto Ray's outstretched arms and said, "I believe I may have offended you with my rude language and inappropriate actions. I'm sincerely remorseful for my transgressions and I fully intend to do everything I can to correct my rude and unforgivable behavior." 
     Ray was stunned at the change in the bird's attitude. As he was about to ask the parrot what had made such a dramatic change in his behavior, the bird continued, "May I ask what the turkey did?" 

11/24/04:  Mouw Still Confused
     Dr. Mouw simply does not seem to understand the central issue in Mormon apologetics.  Here's a Baptist Press article you might wish to review.  Let me try to state it clearly, though this may be counter-productive, as clarity does not seem to be the aim of so much of the Academy today: Christianity is monotheistic.  This is not an arguable statement.  It is not that Christianity just "favors" monotheism, or that we think it is "better" to be monotheistic, than, say, di-theistic or henotheistic or polytheistic.  Christianity is monotheistic, period.  One true God.  You have multiple gods?  Sorry, you aren't a Christian.  Now, such a statement lacks nuance, I well know, but Elijah lacked a fair amount of nuance on Mt. Carmel, the Lord Jesus dismissed nuance in dealing with the Pharisees, and Paul never heard of political correctness, especially when he informed the Galatians that they had once worshipped those which by nature were not gods at all!  You do not show Christian love to a person who has been ensnared in idolatrous falsehood by seeking to nudge them a little into a little less idolatrous stance.  You speak the truth to them in love, taking the time to know what they believe (something Mouw has only done with Millet or Robinson, not with the actual teachings of the General Authorities of the LDS Church and the body of the LDS faithful who this day are going through the endowment ceremony so as to gain the very exaltation that Mouw has been deceived into thinking is no longer a functional LDS belief) so that you may communicate with them with clarity and accuracy.  And as I documented below (and in the seventy six pages found in Is the Mormon My Brother?), as of the night of Mouw's comments in Salt Lake City, Mormons still believe God is an exalted man and that men are gods in embryo. 

11/23/04:  The ACLU's Worst Nightmare
     The Anti-Christian Litigation Union is busily running about the US doing all it can to protect the sensitive souls of atheists from any public appearance of religion once again this holiday season.  But if you really want to know the truth, listen to George Washington's establishment of the observance of Thanksgiving:

11/22/04:  Fuller President Apologizes to Mormons in Error
     One of the key developments of late that has caused many to question the validity of at least some of the evangelicals who spoke in the LDS Tabernacle in Salt Lake City has to do with the fact that some, such as Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary, have chosen, whether out of ignorance or hubris, to attack all of those who have ministered in proclaiming the gospel to Mormons for years and indeed decades.  His comments in the Tabernacle were not only an implicit endorsement of the defensive posture of FARMS and others (can you hear them rejoicing?), but a blanket condemnation of anyone who would approach Mormonism as a false religion that condemns its followers with a false God, a false Christ, and a false gospel. 
     For the sake of context and for those who have not been following the discussion, Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California (yes, I graduated from Fuller in 1989 with an M.A. in Theology) was one of those who spoke in the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City recently.  His comments were brief, but have set off a firestorm of response simply because he chose to follow the path laid out by Mosser and Owen: make friends with Mormon scholars by shooting in the head all those who have ministered to Mormons for years before you.  It is evidently a successful strategy.  Here is the key section of his comments:

On a personal level, over the past half-dozen years I have been a member of a small group of evangelical scholars who have been engaged in lengthy closed-door discussions about spiritual and theological matters with a small group of our LDS counterparts. We have not been afraid to argue strenuously with each other, but our arguments have been conducted in a sincere desire genuinely to understand each other-and in the process we have formed some deep bonds of friendship.  I know that I have learned much in this continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe. We have made much of the need to provide you with a strong defense of traditional Christian convictions, regularly quoting the Apostle Peter's mandate that we present to people like you a reasoned account of the hope that lies with in us-but we have not been careful to follow the same Apostle's counsel that immediately follows that mandate, when he tells us that we must always make our case with "gentleness and reverence" toward those with whom we are speaking. Indeed, we have even on occasion demonized  you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is "really" trying to accomplish in the world. And even at our best, we have-and this is true of both of our communities-we have talked past each other, setting forth oversimplified and distorted accounts of what the other group believes.

Now, of course, the question is, who is the "we" for whom Mouw assumes to speak?  It surely is not me, nor fine folks like Jerald and Sandra Tanner, or Bill McKeever.  So who is it?  Well, there surely have been those who have weaved conspiracy theories into their books.  I have been openly and consistently critical of the excesses found in such books as God Makers II.  I have criticized the sensationalism of many works produced on the subject of Mormonism, and have refused to engage in such behavior in the writing and publishing of two books on the subject, and in public debates with LDS apologists.  But it seems clear that Mouw has fallen into the same trap that ensnared Dr. Blomberg not so long ago: that of thinking that LDS scholars at BYU define Mormonism.  And because of this very narrow exposure to a very narrow spectrum of LDS belief, Mouw has denounced many who have a thousand times his experience and knowledge of Mormonism as having dishonestly misrepresented the Mormon people.  Excuse us, please, if we point out that it is Dr. Mouw who owes the apologies here. [continue this article]

11/21/04:  Issues, Etc. Tonight!
     My apologies for not noting that I will be on the national radio broadcast of Issues, Etc., this evening at 10PM CT.  Here is the link.  The subject will be my book, Scripture Alone.

11/19/04:  Dan Brown and His Fiction of Renown
     My apologies to all the Les Brown fans out there.  I am so utterly sick of The Da Vinci Code I don't know what to do with myself, but it is not going away, and with a movie now in the works, it is time to make every believer an expert on the issues involved.
     A plethora of books/booklets have come out in response to Brown's work of pseudo-fiction (I say that because he has come to believe his own fiction, and clearly the book is intended to communicate an underlying matrix of "facts" even while presenting them in an allegedly fictional milieu), but all of them combined won't touch 1/3 of the audience of over 6 million that the book itself has reached.  I can't walk through an airport without seeing it on store shelves or, more troubling, in someone's hand, being read.  The clearly anti-Christian character of the book is, in our modern society, one of its selling points.  Bashing Christ sells.
     One of the reasons the books that have been written in response are rather brief is simple: how many ways can you say, "That's absurd, and since there isn't even an effort made to seriously ground that claim in reality, what more can be said?"  It only takes a few pages to express utter and complete disdain for the fallacious nature of the book's "history," so after that, you can rap up fairly quickly.  But one is still amazed at the brazen falsehoods that Brown has promulgated while raking in his millions of dollars.  Here is a glowing example from p. 233 of TDC:

     "Indeed," Teabing said.  "Stay with me.  During this fusion of religions, Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian religion, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicaea." 
     Sophie had heard of it only insofar as its being the birthplace of the Nicene Creed.
     "At this gathering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon---the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus." 
     "I don't follow.  His divinity?"
     "My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.  A mortal."
     "Not the Son of God?"
     "Right," Teabing said, "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea."
     "Hold on.  You're saying Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?"
     "A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added.

Given that only two participants did not sign the creed, how is a vote of 99% to 1% "relatively close"? If Brown showed any kind of seriousness in researching the rest of the story, one might extend some grace at this point and discuss the real issues of the council, the homoousios, homoiousios, and heteroousios positions, but since Brown does not, we need not concern ourselves.  But notice the claim that "until that moment in history" (italics in the original) Jesus had been viewed as a mere mortal, and that the concept of his deity (divinity) was, plainly, the brainchild of Constantine.  Such an utterly absurd claim is so easily refuted that it makes one wonder at the audacity of someone who could collect millions for putting it in print.  The Council of Nicaea met in AD 325.  More than two centuries earlier the following words were written by Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch:  [continue with the article]

11/16/04:  David Cloud: Brave Behind the Keyboard, Less Willing to Answer
     I guess it is a matter of figuring anyone Gail Riplinger would attack can't be all bad, but I've always kept David Cloud, a well known KJV Only fundamentalist writer, in a little different "group" in my thinking than most of the rest of the KJV Only crowd.  But of late I've had to rethink that, given his adding anti-Calvinism to his repertoire.  I noted lately that Cloud had posted a wonderfully fair and unbiased review of Debating Calvinism, and in response, I had contacted him once again and offered him the opportunity of engaging the topic of God's sovereign grace in salvation over against his synergistic beliefs on the DL.  And, as always, he declined the challenge to debate, even though I made it clear that we would call him at his leisure.  But the back and forth has continued.  Today I pointed out to him that if he was consistent, he and his fellow KJV Only writers would have a literal cow over Hunt's handling of Acts 13:48 in both What Love is This? as well as in Debating Calvinism.  It would be so useful to ask David Cloud direct, exegetical questions on passages like that, and on John 6.  But alas, despite our best efforts, fundamentalistic Arminians insist upon hiding behind their keyboards while frantically warning their ever shrinking audiences of the great dangers of "Calvinism."  Cloud constantly beats the (proper) drum of needing to be biblically faithful while at the same time avoiding responsible challenges to his unbiblical dedication to inconsistent Arminianism.  Sorry, but if Cloud had contacted me after I had written something about him, and challenged me to stand behind what I had written on his program, I would have been happy to oblige.  For some odd reason, that doesn't work in reverse.  Strange, isn't it?  The invitation/challenge stands. 

The A&O Group on Formal Night
     Well, there we are!  The photographer almost had a cow when we showed up for our picture.  "How many of you are there?"  A few folks missed out, but this is the main group.  Yeah, you could say they knew we were on the boat.  I think the only larger group was the bridge tournament group.  Ironically, they played in this enclosed room for hours on end, which made me wonder, "Uh, why bother doing this on a ship, anyway?"  Again, what a great group of folks made up the A&O contingent.  Hope to see you all, and many more, next year!

11/15/04:  Missing the Point: Repeatedly
     I was looking over yet another "statement" offered by an ecclesiastical body or group regarding the Auburn Avenue controversy, and I was once again struck by the fact that it is tremendously rare to find a meaningful response simply because no one, evidently, is willing to accurately represent the diversity of opinion expressed by authors loosely identified with the "Federal Vision" viewpoint.  As I was reading the list of things supposed affirmed or denied just now, I found that about 30% of what was said would accurately represent Douglas Wilson's view, but about 70% he has vehemently denied.  I guess there are some of the more radical writers who would be accurately identified by some of the statements, but as a group, the list of affirmations and denials was another example of straw-man argumentation.
     What really bothers me about the consistency of these misrepresentations is just that the real issues are almost never addressed because so much of the time is spent on both sides making charges and counter-charges and trying to correct misapprehensions and the like.  Are the Federal Vision folks at least partly to blame for the confusion?  Of course.  Sometimes they say things in one context that would indicate a more radical position than they are willing to affirm in a less friendly context.  This leads inevitably to confusion.  But I have concluded the majority of the "I don't think you really meant what you just said and even if you did I believe you really mean this" kind of stuff is taking place, for reasons I cannot begin to plumb, on the other side of the fence.  I haven't seen much response to the Wilson debate as yet (and probably won't until the DVD's come out, hopefully very soon), but outside of the inevitable few for whom I cannot even pronounce my own name without error or various levels of incompetence or stupidity (i.e., writers for reformedcatholicism.com), I really do not expect to hear the criticism that I misrepresented Wilson's viewpoints.  I refuse to add to the fog bank of confusion that exists already.  My desire was to clarify, not confuse.

11/6/04: Weigh Anchor!
     Well, here we go!  Debate last night, conference today, headed to sea tomorrow.  Great group of folks headed to sea for seven days including numerous presentations on justification (along with other things).  Steve Camp will be singing, Phil Johnson and David King will be speaking (I will as well, of course).  I'll report on the debate on the Dividing Line when we get back next week, but I'll just say that the only ones disappointed were probably the ones expecting some mean spirited blood bath.  I will try to post a few items from sea! 

11/4/04:  Greetings from LALA Land
     In God's providence I was on the same shuttle bus that picked up Doug Wilson at the airport today, and as we were riding to the hotel he said, "I've only been in this blue state for ten minutes, and I already feel icky."  Yes indeed, I know the feeling.  But you can look at it in a positive way: it's easy to stay in the red if you want.  In fact, there's a lot more red here in California than blue!  :-)

     Anyway, as I was looking over the blogs I find that Eric Svendsen is going to enjoy his time out here tomorrow and Saturday, if for no other reason than he should get a little time away from a certain Roman Catholic internet apologist who evidently only needs two hours of sleep a night and has the utterly annoying habit of parsing every sentence, every clause, resulting in these massive core-dumps of text that rarely accomplish anything at all.  Welcome to CA, Eric!  Enjoy your vacation. 
     Finally, I sure am glad I'm a Calvinist today.  See, unlike folks who tout "libertarian free will" and the like, I happen to believe that when I pray, "Oh God, if it pleases You, give the President of our nation divine guidance and wisdom in selecting men who will interpret our Constitution as it was intended, and who will do justice in the highest court in our land so that our children's children will be benefited," I am praying to the God who turns the king's heart as He desires (not as the king desires, Prov. 16:9, 21:1) and who can, in fact, fulfill the desire expressed in my prayer (and that is my prayer, I assure you).  I sometimes wonder why folks pray to God and ask for such things while, at the same time, teaching that God would never, ever, do the very things they are asking Him to do!  Yes, I know.  Our prayers are often much better then our practice.

Quick Thought
     Just a quick entry. I am packing for the trip and have to run by the store. I grab a bite to eat at KFC (had a hankering for corn on the cob!) and sit down at our kitchen counter to eat. We don't have cable or satellite (no, I just know I'd spend way too much time watching the History Channel and fighting with my son over watching Sports Center for the 4th time in a row), so I'm trying to find something about the election on this tiny little 4-inch b&w TV we have sitting on top of the microwave. And since I couldn't find anything, I ended up doing something odd: I turned to that channel between 20 and 22, that network that has like $700,000,000 more than it needs but is always begging for money anyway, and lo and behold there's a couple preaching--no, "prophesying," with the last name of White! I guess they are from Florida somewhere. The woman was rat-a-tatting along like T.D. Jakes, promising that if you get up and go to the phone and pledge $84.11 per month for a year then, well, everything good is going to happen to you. She kept quoting, out of context, of course, a portion from Psalm 84:11, though I didn't hear much about the "walking uprightly" part. In fact, I didn't hear anything distinctly Christian the entire time I was eating. But I did hear a lot about giving $84.11 to a bunch of filthy rich heretics.
     At one point the husband managed to get a word in edgewise and he started talking about "favor" (he was "prophesying" from Exodus 3:21: watching them do tag-team eisegesis for money was truly amazing). I about choked on a bite of wonderfully yummy buttermilk biscuit as he came up with a financially-based definition  about getting lots of money from God by calling this TV network. At one point my wife stopped packing long enough to wander by and watch for a moment. "See, honey," I said, "that's what you need to start doing. That's why we don't have a big house and lots of money." She gave me the "oh brother" look and went back to packing.
     Every time I take a few moments to turn on that channel I am reminded once again about how utterly foreign the religion they peddle and sell is from that found in the Bible. I know, they talk about the Bible, and for some reason a few genuine Christians fall through a trap door and end up like a fish out of water on their stage, but in general the Bible exists there only to be eisegetically tortured into a money-making prop for a bunch of false prophets and charlatans who know exactly what they are doing all along. I used to wonder who would say to God someday, "But Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name??" but I really don't wonder about that part anymore. I now realize that they will then add "And we even have video to prove it!" Jesus' answer will be the same, despite the video archives.

Headed to California
     I apologize for not getting to the textual variation discussion as I had planned, but the best laid plans of mice and men and all (and I would rarely call what I do these days "best laid plans").  I am traveling to LA today, and will try, as best I can, to get something blogged before the debate, and, if possible, a quick report on it once it is completed.  But then it will become rather quiet around here, for if you have ever purchased Internet time while at sea, well, you know why I will be real scarce.  I may try to get a brief note to the office here to see if it can be posted just to let you all know how things are going at sea.  Otherwise, I hope to be back into the blogosphere on the 15th of November.
     I am very thankful that the conference this weekend will not be distracted by national events.  I could not help but think this afternoon as I watched President Bush greeting his supporters that as they were applauding and waving flags and the like he was thinking, "This is what I missed four years ago."  He sort of had that look in his eyes.  Of course, if I had been keeping the schedule he had been keeping for a few months, the look in my eyes would mean absolutely nothing, as there would be no brain activity going on behind them.  :-) 

11/2/04:  An Election Day Prayer
     Father, my nation has no basis upon which to seek Your blessing.  You are the King of Kings, the ruler over all nations, and You know how deeply my country has offended Your honor and Your law.  My people seek every opportunity to engage in rebellion, and You have begun to place over us men and women who are open in their hatred of Your truth and Your Word.  We know Your wrath is already being seen in our self-destructive, life-loathing murder of unborn children, and in our perverse willingness to distort the very first institution You established among men, marriage.  I confess Your judgment is just.
     I likewise know, oh Lord, that You often use Your judgments to bring repentance amongst men. And so Lord I pray that You will indeed bring repentance in this land, and that You would do so as you see fit.  I know this may involve further judgment and I may have to count the cost daily of following You as Your enemies grow bolder and bolder in their rush into destruction.  Whatever Your sovereign will, I ask that Your people would be faithful in seeking Your honor and glory in all things.
     But though I know Your judgment to be just, I also know you to be a merciful God.  And so, Lord, I pray Your mercy will be seen this day in this land.  I pray that you will protect us from ungodly leaders, and instead will show mercy and grace to our children's children.  Work so as to bring an end to the murder of unborn children in our land.  Work so as to revive the basic conscience of men and women so that the progress of those seeking to pervert our nation through homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" will be stopped.  Show Yourself powerful, Lord, in restraining the wicked, and emboldening Your people who love You as we seek to stand for Your truth, to Your glory.  May You indeed bless our nation, not with material wealth, but with true repentance. 
     In whatever takes place this day, Lord, our prayer is that righteousness will be exalted, and wickedness defeated.  And in all situations, may we be found faithful to give You all the honor and glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

11/1/04:  Back from Peoria
     Had a great time at Bethany Baptist in Peoria, IL, speaking on the Five Solas in celebration of Reformation Day.  Also got to spend some time talking with unbelievers at Bradley University there in Peoria (quite a challenge!).  Have only a few days at home before heading to LA for our national conference, debate, and cruise!