For Those Behind the Times

Apologetics Blog Archives

Missed It When It Was On the Main Page?  Here It Is
12/31/03 to Inception of the Blog

12/31/03: About the Dividing Line....
     First, Straitgate has run out of space for the moment, and we can't get hold of the webmaster (hello? Earth to SL!), so we have posted the most recent Dividing Line over at [Pete}'s site, but the link is the same: http://www.aomin.org/dl.ram. 
     Secondly, we will have a Dividing Line Thursday morning, 11AM MST.  Yes, we know it is New Year's Day, but hey, all that means is that you might have some parades on TV, and some college football games.  Not much more than that.  So why not?  So put it on your calendar and call in at 877-753-3341, otherwise, I will have to do my world-famous British accent the whole hour, in-between John Denver Christmas music, while doing a top-10 countdown of Barry Manilow's greatest hits.

12/30/03: A Recent Dividing Line Remembered...
Remember the recent Dividing Line featuring Gerry Matatics and Eric Svendsen?  (For those who do not, the blog archive has some notes on it, and you can listen and get the background by clicking here). Given Gerry's world-famous sense of humor, evidenced by his telling the joke about the day they were going to stone the woman taken in adultery, and Jesus said, 'Let you who is without sin cast the first stone,' and as a stone goes whizzing by, Jesus says, 'Mom!' ---Yeah, he really did that.  I heard it on tape.  And it was in public, too!), I'm sure he will appreciate the following very well done cartoon.  You always wonder who is listening to these webcasts.  Now we know....

12/29/03: A Few Thoughts on The Passion of the Christ
February 25th it hits.  Mel Gibson's film on the passion of Christ will bring us many opportunities to speak of God's purpose in the cross.  But in a world filled with "evangelicals" whose worldview is post-modern, not Christian, the film holds the possibility of inflaming the latent tendencies toward an ecumenical betrayal of the gospel itself.  I presented a few thoughts on the topic as I preached Sunday evening at PRBC (listen / download).

12/26/03:  Wilson takes a shot at NPism
     Obviously, Doug Wilson has become tired of being connected with the New Perspective on Paul (aka, NPism), so, a special edition of Credenda Agenda has come out, replete with a fairly lengthy article on the subject.  I have had a couple of folks write and complain that I have noted the confluence of Auburnism (aka the loose movement associated with the past few meetings of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church conference in January, which we just learned recently will feature N.T. Wright, the chief proponent of NPism amongst conservatives, in 2005) with NPism.  Obviously, for those who have listened with any amount of care to my comments, I have pointed out the difference in background of both movements, Auburnism flowing from a staunchly conservative viewpoint, NPism flowing from a liberal background.  I have likewise noted the differences in emphases as well.  However, anyone who has read Wright cannot help but pause and take notice when Steve Schlissel stands before the gathered congregants at the AAPC conference and asserts that justification is nothing more than the truth that Jews and Gentiles are part of one covenant, and that by faith.  If Wilson disagrees, he has yet to be plain about it.  When I see in print, “Steve Schlissel is wrong in what he said,” the issue will be concluded.  But, having read this special edition, I found no such rebuke of Schlissel’s assertion.  (continue here)

12/24/03:  Advent Blessings
OK, I know, Baptists are not supposed to know, or at least use, words like "advent" since that sounds way too liturgical and all.  But, it is a good biblical word, describing that tremendous historical event when the eternal Son of God, the one through whom all things were made, entered into His own creation, taking on flesh, being made in the likeness of men, dwelling with us as Immanuel, God with us, proving Himself obedient to the point of death, even death upon a cross.  And as hard as it has been for me this year, I am trying to focus upon that tremendous truth.  My computer is currently playing Handel's Messiah, and I cannot help but rejoice in the great inspired and prophetic words, "For unto us a child is born, for unto us a son is given...!"

12/21/03: Lazarus and Category Errors
     Ever wondered why anyone would object to the Lazarus story as illustrative of God's work of regeneration? I was thinking about it after George Bryson said on BAM that God changes hearts, but, not everyone whose heart is changed believes, because there are different "levels" of change. I had mentioned the biblical phraseology from Ezekiel 36:26, taking out a heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh (I wonder how that does not violate libertarian free will?), and I have to then wonder: is it possible to have a stoney/fleshly heart, so that it is a little less stoney, or a little more fleshly? Is that what we are reduced to? In any case, I was reviewing John 11 and was again wondering why anyone who confesses that Christ has the power to raise them to eternal life in the future would question Christ's power to do so spiritually now. And of course, the reason is easy to find: it is not a textual issue, but a tradition issue. Consider: Jesus obviously is in sovereign control of the situation. Even Lazarus' sickness is a part of God's sovereign plan (just as in John 9). He delays coming just so that His power can be demonstrated (v. 6). He knows what He is going to do, and why. In fact, He does what He does so that His disciples would believe (v. 15). When He begins ministering in the situation, He says,

"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Is Jesus only the physical resurrection, and the physical life? Of course not. In fact, isn't the term "live" in the phrase "everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die" meant spiritually? How can Jesus be speaking of spiritual life in John 11 when it would be such a terrible factual category error to do so? Because the category error is made by those who do not see the interplay in the Johannine literature between the physical and the spiritual. Consider the term "hear" in John. How often, in the exact same context, does the Lord play upon physical and spiritual hearing, drawing out a strong lesson by the fact that men who can hear Him physically cannot hear Him spiritually? Would it be a "category error" to draw the same conclusions from those passages? Hardly!
     The Scriptures speak of the unregenerate as spiritually dead; the Scriptures speak of regeneration in terms of resurrection (Ephesians 2). One has to ask the proponent of libertarianism if their real problem with the illustration of Lazarus is that, just like Ephesians 2:5, it robs the creature of the final control and power in salvation? Remember the words of Jesus: "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes" (John 5:21). Who will dare to charge the Son with a category error here?  Indeed, I rejoice that when God called me to life, He did not have to seek my permission!  I rejoice in a sovereign, powerful Savior who never fails!

12/21/03:  Sample E-Mails in Response to the BAM "Debate" (Updated 12/24)

12/20/03:  Rules for Interpretation in the 21st Century
     I received an e-mail that contained a list of "Principles of Biblical Interpretation for the 21st Century.  While I didn't agree with all of them, the first five were sadly accurate:
     1.  Scripture is full of paradoxes and apparent contradictions that cannot be explained, reconciled, harmonized, or systematized by the finite, human mind [and I add, it is considered backwards, ignorant, or "traditionalist," to seek to explain or harmonize such things].
     2.  Apparently contradictory statements in Scripture must each be given equal weight and authority in interpretation [even if their contexts are completely different, see #3].
     3.  Each passage of Scripture stands alone and must be interpreted by itself.
     4.  There are no passages of Scripture that speak more clearly than other passages.  Each passage is equally clear.  Each passage is equally unclear.
     5.  The true and full sense of Scripture is manifold, limited only by the number of apparently contradictory passages a reader can find.

Those who seek to promote God's truth at this time when post-modernism has infected the very core of Evangelicalism, well know the truth, and destructiveness, of the above propositions.

God Has Been Good To Me
     Cruises produce wonderful pictures.  I happen to think I have a truly wonderful family.  In fact, the following picture would look much better if I were not in it, but then it wouldn't be a family picture!  My kids were involved in the discussions on the cruise, from my son being at the theological talks each night, to my daughter sharing Christ with her Muslim cabin steward.  And I could never get past step #1 without my lovely wife and partner! 

12/19/03:  Preserving Traditions
     How can a person who defends the Trinity, for example, properly and accurately from Scripture, then turn around and defend the idea that God's sovereignty is a chimera, and that man is actually sovereign over God, so that man's libertarian free will is actually supreme, in the great matter of salvation, over God's?  The answer has become clearer for me over the years.  Indeed, the best way to detect the insidious activity of human tradition is to note when someone abandons their normative hermeneutic and embraces, without notice, some new means of interpreting the text.  It is this unadmitted variation in exegetical methodology that creates so much frustration when differences are discussed between believers.
     An illustration has been floating through my mind of late.  The vast majority of Trinitarians would read Titus 2:11-14 in such a fashion as to see the text giving us a reference to the deity of Christ, especially in the words of verse 13, "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (an example of Granville Sharp's Rule).  The following verse backs this up with important references from the Old Testament regarding Yahweh's work of forming for Himself a special people, here applied to the work of Christ in redemption.  Now, some of those who deny the deity of Christ attempt to read the text in Titus as having reference to two individuals, Christ, and Yahweh, as a separate person, so that there are two appearances in the text.  Of course, the only reason for reading the text in such a fashion comes not from the text itself, but from an over-riding tradition, an external controlling belief that demands that the text be read in that fashion (so as to avoid contradiction with the theological system).  The vast majority of Evangelicals would detect the unwarranted insertion of a second person into the text, would see the role of the higher authority, and would object to the pretended exegesis on that basis.
     And yet, the vast majority of those same evangelicals will engage in the identical activity when the central platform of human religion, man's alleged ability to have the final say in God's self-glorifying work of salvation, is under discussion.  Example:  John 6:44.  "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."  The text is simple, clear, pure (i.e., no textual variants get in the way), and compelling.  And yet, to avoid the weight of the text, what do the vast majority of readers do?  They insert the very same kind of eisegetical conclusion that we just examined.  In v. 44 the Father draws, and the Son raises, and there is nothing in the text that even suggests that the one raised is someone different than the one drawn.  Indeed, "the Father...draws him, and him I will raise up" expresses the textual actions with clarity.  Yet, the reading "understood" by the vast majority of non-Reformed Evangelicals is, "the Father...draws him, but someone else the Son raises up [since not all who are drawn will cooperate with God so as to be saved, thus protecting their libertarian free will and their ultimacy in the work of salvation]."  When you ask for a basis, from the text, for the insertion of a second "him" that differs in identity or extent from the first "him" that is drawn, you never get a textually based reply, but instead get, "Well, it must, because..." followed by the immediate abandonment of John 6.
     So watch for the sudden shifts in hermeneutical methodology.  It is a clear sign that you are about to encounter a human tradition dressed as biblical theology.

12/18/03: I Like Having Artists as Friends

click for a larger image

12/17/03: A Quick Note
What an incredible experience.  Nineteen days on the road, the Stafford debate, the apologetics cruise, a respiratory infection, preaching at three different churches, all capped off by three hours on The Bible Answer Man broadcast. Just a few things, since I just flew home and have way too much to do to try to dig out from underneath all that stuff that accumulates over time (like when the dog eats the back door out of frustration at not getting to go with us).
     First, for those asking us for tapes or CD's of the BAM program, we don't have them.  Nor will we.  CRI will be your only source for the program.  If you want the program, download the mp3's.
     Second, we should have the Stafford mp3's very quickly.  Watch the ad column to the right of the main page for details.
     Third, many, many thanks to the precious folks who worked so hard to make everything happen over the past almost three weeks, especially: my precious wife and kids, Mike and Sau O'Fallon, Rich Pierce, Warren Smith, Steve Camp, Phil Johnson, Mike and Jane Gendron, Sam Shamoun, Eddie and Tia Dalcour, and all the precious folks who joined us on the Zaandam like St. Dr. Paul "WallyBalt, AstroGeek, Hawaii 5-0 Book 'Em Dano, Hang Ten Surf's Up Dude, Goin' to a Luau, Turns Green When Angry Due to Exposure to Gamma Ray Bursts, Kung Fu Fightin' Astronomer, Gooberhead, Object of Research, Moon Doggie, 'WallyBallyLoopyGoopyParaDilllyBoopyAstronomergoober', Hawaiian Babes Screensaver" Price (inside joke). 
     Finally, yes, we plan on doing the DL tomorrow morning, live, call-in.  Please don't melt our phone lines.  :-)

11/25/03: Here Comes the Big Debate/the Cruise/BAM
     This will probably be the last blog entry I make for a few weeks. [Actually, I had to sneak something else in...see right after this]. I suppose I could install a program on my laptop, but believe me, satellite costs at sea are prohibitive!  :-)  For those who join with us here at A&O in loving, passionately, the truth of Christ's full and undiminished deity, the debate on Friday, December 5th in Tampa will be tremendously important.  Please pray for me as I seek to establish the truth and refute error.  In fact, if you will covenant to be praying in the days before, and on that evening, please drop us a line letting us know.  It would be very encouraging.
     The next day what is left of me, and about 170 other folks, will be heading out on the MS Zaandam for a week of apologetic study and Christian fellowship.  The amount of work that goes into putting on such a cruise is simply beyond measure, it truly is. The number of details, and problems, are legion.  Mike and Sau O'Fallon have poured themselves into this trip yet once again, so not only should we thank them profusely for all their effort, but please pray for them during the cruise as well.  "Issues" always arise even when on the boat. 
     But I do not come home right after the cruise.  Instead, I fly to California for the "Calvinism Debate" on The Bible Answer Man broadcast, 12/16-17.  I will be "debating" George Bryson in studio, taking calls and hopefully getting the message across that Arminianism is sub-biblical, John 6 cannot be consistently interpreted by synergists, Chatty Cathy dolls get crushed by Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10, and Acts 4:27-28, and resurrection power is not divine rape.

11/26/03:  Svendsen Replies to Sungenis
     Just a quick note to let you know that Eric Svendsen has rebutted Sungenis' article.  It seems Sungenis didn't learn much from the Mr. X debacle.  :-)  Click here.

11/26/03:  Point of Personal Privilege!
As you consider the holidays, how about supporting a wonderful Christian lady who makes outrageously wonderful shortbread cookie creations?  Amy is one of our channel regulars, and you can see her handiwork at www.amylooz.com!  Tell her DrOakley sent you!  Won't do anything, but she'll laugh anyway. 

11/25/03:  A Positive Statement from the Anglicans
    In the midst of apostasy, it's nice to see someone standing for truth.  Click here for a positive statement from the Anglicans.

11/20/03:  A Question for JW's
     So you think Jesus is a mighty angelic creature, the greatest of God's creations, and is hence "a god"?  And that all the passages that refer to him as qeovj, theos, "god," are simply referring to him as one in a class of mighty angelic creatures?  Well, if that is so, pray tell us all: if a creature, no matter how exalted, can be said to be worthy to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing and dominion (Rev. 5:9-13), be lauded as the one for whom creation itself was made and in whom it has existence (Col. 1:16-17), and be the one to whom every knee bows in confession of His lordship (Phil. 2:10-11), then how on earth could we ever distinguish the worship and honor that is due only to the one true God from that which is given to "lesser creatures" as you believe Jesus to be?  Doesn't your position in essence deprive us of any meaningful way of differentiating between the one true God and any lesser "deity"?

11/20/03:  AAPCism and NPism Continue to Melt Together
     I have been severely criticized by some for noting the similarity of conclusions drawn by some in the Auburn Avenue movement and those found in New Perspectivism.  Yet, as I am monitoring both sides, I cannot help but seeing a confluence of perspectives, despite the very different backgrounds and sources of the two movements.  A good friend of mine, who I terribly mistreat in channel as a deep sign of my true love for him (actually, everyone in channel does the same thing), keeps me up to date on the ruminations of one AAPC devotee who has begun openly promoting NP concepts and conclusions.  And when you see John Armstrong (a strong advocate of NPism) putting together a conference including Norman Shepherd (AAPCism), you can't help wondering what the future will bring. Stay vigilant!

11/19/03:  Bob Sungenis Roots for the Cardinals
The Arizona Cardinals stink.  Let's face it.  They got clocked 44-6 this past weekend, and they are headed for another one of their regular 4-12 type seasons.  I have often said I'd be happy to volunteer to pack them up and ship them off to any city willing to take them. They are just bad from top to bottom.  So why would I say Sungenis roots for the Cardinals?  Well, late last night, a few hours after the Dividing Line featuring Gerry Matatics, Sungenis posted a review on his website.  Well, no, not a review.  I don't know what to call it.  If you have listened to that edition of the Dividing Line and want some of the clearest evidence ever offered that some folks suffer from massively selective hearing, check it out.  It is almost humorous, if it didn't involve obvious spiritual blindness. (BTW, Sungenis should really leave the cheesey titles to Scott Hahn.  Though Hahn's define the term "cheese," at least, considered singularly, they normally carry a small amount of humor.  Sungenis' article is titled, "Ding, Dong, The Witch is Dead."  Excuse me?)  Outside of the expected egregious misrepresentations, the whole thing is focused on a single issue.  To summarize, "Hey, hey, don't listen to all those questions that didn't get an answer, just think of one thing: we have a single exception to Dr. Svendsen's thesis in a non-biblical source outside of the time parameters he examined!  Wahoo!  We have an exception to a rule of grammar!  We win!  We win!  WE ARE #1!"  And that's why I say Bob Sungenis roots for the Cardinals.  See, it's one thing to say, "Hey, I'm a Cardinals fan, whether they win, or lose...and lose...and lose."  I admire that kind of die-hard fan.  But that is very different from standing there in the 4th quarter as the Cards are down by 30+ points screaming, "Yeah man, we are the BEST!  We ROCK!"  That's simple self-deception.  And that's Bob Sungenis.  He can listen to Matatics self-destruct on the level of not even being able to read a lexical entry properly and that doesn't even create a blip on his radar screen.  Why?  "Cuz Rome rules!  WE ARE #1!"  Just as the Cardinals will only get to the Super Bowl by purchasing tickets to it in 2008 (here in Phoenix), Rome will only get you the consolation prize of deception now, and destruction at the final judgment.

11/18/03:  WOW.  What a Dividing Line!  For those who listened in (we set new records both for those listening live and the number of folks in the chat channel) on Tuesday evening when Eric Svendsen and I took on Gerry Matatics, it was quite the experience.  The archive is up (straitgate archive or mirror site), and the mp3 is available here at aomin.org.  Despite a couple of woops's (we fried another channel on our sound board!), the 80-minute DL was one of the most amazing we have ever aired.  I won't bother trying to explain it, since at times, you simply have to hear it to believe it. One of the more memorable points was when I pointed out that Gerry's arguments would invalidate the use of Granville Sharp's Rule.  His response was classic obfuscation and tap-dancing.  Don't miss this one!

11/18/03:  Kudos to [Pete] the FurbyMaster
For everyone who enjoys listening to the Dividing Line live, please render thanksgiving to Pete, the guy who makes it possible by providing the webcasting facilities.  Check out his blog at:
http://blog.peteweb.com/

11/18/03: Massachusetts Changes Name to Gomorrah
Not that anyone is overly surprised.  The decades of corruption of the judiciary (a fact openly acknowledged, at least by their actions, by one major political party) has led inevitably to the actions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court today.  To quote Reuters:

Consider the contrast: Roy Moore is fired, the Ten Commandments are hidden in a closet, and Massachusetts grants the sacred status of marriage to homosexuals.  Then again, is it really a contrast?  Isn't Massachusetts just acting in harmony with those who could not bear to be reminded of God's law in Alabama?  The same mindset that allows entire judicial panels to ignore the role of God in US history in Alabama leads them to redefine the entire structure of the society, and the nature of marriage in the process, in Massachusetts. 
     It truly makes one think through one's views on such issues as God's law and the basis of final judgment.  I was watching one political leader over the weekend lying through his teeth, hiding the fact that he and his cohorts have decided that no man or woman who would ever, ever consider the facts about the murder of unborn children will ever sit upon a judicial bench again, and I thought to myself, "If such a man will not be judged for his actions in maintaining the Holocaust of the Unborn in this nation and around the world, then there is no justice at all." 
     How do we pray for nations like Australia, England, Canada, and now the United States---all of whom have heard God's truth with great clarity, and yet are intent, in the actions of their governments (and especially now in the actions of the New Priesthood of Rebellion, aka, the judiciary), upon throwing off all forms of restraint (while suppressing the proclamation of the gospel)?  History says God normally deals with such nations with judgment that either brings repentance through difficulty and disaster, or through destruction itself.  We cannot see the future, but we know this: we are to remain faithful no matter what the situation, no matter what the cost.

11/17/03:  I Told You This Was Coming

Click here for an amazing article.

11/17/03:  Hews Hou and RC Apologists
For those who might wish to do some reading to be ready for the Svendsen/White vs. Matatics DL Tuesday night, here is an excellent article by Eric Svendsen in response to the article cited by Matatics in my debate with him in October in Salt Lake City, the article Matatics indicated "destroys" the hews hou argument. Click here for the article.

11/12/03:  Are Mormons Trinitarians?
Here is the article I referenced on the DL Tuesday evening:

Are Mormons Trinitarians?

Quick Thought:  In preparing for the upcoming debate with Greg Stafford on the deity of Christ in Tampa (click here for info), a wonderful Christian brother expanded upon a concept I had written about in The Forgotten Trinity.  Specifically, some who deny the deity of Christ cite John 5 as evidence that the Son is inferior to the Father because He does nothing "apart from" the Father.  I have often pointed out that this is not due to an inferiority on the part of the Son, but due to the perfection of the unity that exists between the Father and the Son.  This brother put this truth in the form of a question: why can't the Son do something that we can do (i.e., do something "apart from" the Father)?  The reason makes the point: it is not due to something wrong with the Son, but do to His essential nature as deity. That is, the Son cannot do anything separate from the Father because that would involve a disruption in the unity of the very nature of God, shared fully by both the Father and the Son.  As we move toward that time of year when our thoughts are drawn to the Incarnation, think upon the glorious truth that Jesus Christ was, and is still, the God-Man, the "Lord of Glory" who was yet crucified (1 Corinthians 2:8). 

11/3/03-The Revenge of the Gnostics, or,
ABC = Always Bashing Christianity

A few thoughts on Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and The Da Vinci Code.

No, I could not sit still while watching it.  Who, with the slightest knowledge of the facts of the situation, could?  But I still had to suffer through the ABC (yes, the same folks who brought you the Peter Jenning's Jesus Seminar commercial a few years ago) special on the fictional, absurd, yet raking-in-the-money book by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code.  In fact, it has special meaning, since there was a small chance, for a couple of hours, that I was going to have a chance to respond to it on a nationally broadcast news program, but that did not happen (at least not yet anyway).  In any case, for anyone familiar with the love of gnosticism exemplified by the Jesus Seminar's elevation of the Gospel of Thomas to quasi-canonical status (click here for an article I wrote on this topic for CRI), and the constant popularity of Elaine Pagels and her ilk, this new work is hardly surprising, outside of its blatant, obvious reliance upon previously written (and refuted) works of the same genre.  To call this an anti-Christian screed that is clearly fiction (but is being treated as if it has serious historical weight) is to engage in understatement.  BE WARNED!  The special doesn't even begin to give you a real taste for the depravity of the book, which likens medieval architecture to female genitalia in graphic language.  They obviously realized that going to that level of detail would not fly on network television...at least not yet.
     Tomorrow on the DL I will be addressing various aspects of the program, but in particular, its simply ridiculous presentation on the "gnostic gospels."  Did you notice how they did not have the same scholars on during that section that they had on before?  There's a reason for that.  All they could do was interview the very folks who make money peddling the meandering silliness of the ancient gnostics (excuse me, but they call this journalism?).  When you read the contents of Nag Hammadi and the like, you are struck by the utter incoherence (purposeful incoherence, given the system itself) that marks those writings, yet the gleefully uncritical acceptance of the value of these works by the media elite seems to know no bounds. 
     ABC has once again done its best to bash the Christian faith while enriching those who join them in their campaign.  The ancient gnostics would be chuckling at the resurrection of their old writings, but in light of 2 Peter 2:9, I sorta doubt they are.

11/01/03: As Long As It is Opposed to God

A friend just sent me this note:

How long will we have the freedom to even mention these things?  If the current legal case in Australia is any indication, not long.  Seems a ministry named Catch the Fire held a seminar on Islam following the events of 9-11-2001. They dared to quote from the Quran and the Hadith (the collections of authoritative Muslim traditions).  Well, post-modern Western civilization is not tolerant of such intolerance.  I contacted the Australian Embassy and received the following information about the case:

The case is being heard under the State of Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 under which the Islamic Council of Victoria has made a complaint of religious vilification against Catch the Fire Ministries. The purpose of the Act is to promote racial and religious tolerance by prohibiting the vilification of persons on the ground of race or religious belief or activity, and to provide a means of redress for the victims of racial or religious vilification.

Vilification?  The frightening part is that it is reported that the Christian ministry can not use as its defense that what they said is true.  The whole point is not whether they spoke the truth, but whether the Muslims were "vilified" thereby!  Such may strike you as absolutely insane, but such is the nature of the religion of post-modernism: "tolerance" can be very, very intolerant of truth.  The response from the Australian Embassy had included this statement:

Equally, all Australians share the obligations of commitment to Australia and its democratic institutions and values, and respect for the right of others to express their culture and beliefs.

To which I replied:

Does this freedom include the right to truthfully represent the beliefs of a religious group that denies the validity of your own, and, along with this, expressing the central affirmation of your own religion that another religion is itself not speaking the truth regarding God and the way by which a person might come before Him?  In other words, are Christians protected in your country so that they may believe *and proclaim* the words of the founder of their religion, Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."  Or does the concept of "tolerance" in fact promote intolerance of such a belief?

We will see what kind of response comes back, if any at all.  My friends, use your freedom to speak the truth while you have it.  The cost of speaking the truth will escalate, sooner than most of us think.

10/27/03:  Radical, Unbiblical, Out of Control KJV Onlyists Bring Disgrace on the Gospel

We have already warned folks about these men (click here).  For our efforts in speaking the truth we ended up with even more childish, ludicrous behavior out of these men at the next conference, as this picture notes:

We reported on this on the Dividing Line, playing audio sections of their inane ranting as well.  Since that time, we have not wasted our time at the Conference any longer.  After eighteen years of consistent witness, respectfully adorning the gospel of Jesus Christ by speaking the truth to the LDS at the Conference, we determined it was no longer a useful effort, because of the poisonous atmosphere of hatred and mockery created by these "evangelists" with no "evangel."  So we have not distributed literature in Utah at the General Conference during 2003.  And I was hoping that possibly these ignorant, rebellious men would tire of their activities and simply go away, allowing for meaningful ministry to take place again (though, repairing the damage done by these men's "witnessing" would take a very long time).  However, as soon as I arrived in Salt Lake this October, I noted on television a report about how they would be showing up in force yet once again.  They love attention, they love what they call "persecution."  And I have learned that they took to desecrating LDS temple garments this year, resulting in some LDS trying to take the garments from them.  This then resulted in arrests and charges of assault against one of the LDS men.  I am glad we were not around.  It truly looks like any meaningful witnessing will never again take place during the Conference thanks to these "evangelists" who have no interest in biblical truth.  They are quite brave in groups, but one-on-one they are utterly incapable of meaningful apologetic interaction or defense.  As I have said many times, they are a scourge, a plague.  They may indeed be a form of judgment upon the Mormons, for their hate-filled childish behavior will be taken by many Mormons as another reason not to listen to any meaningful presentation of the gospel.

10/24/03:  Why Are They Laughing?
It was a new experience for me:  as I walked up to the podium in Águas de Lindóia, Brazil, at the 19^th Annual FIEL Conference, accompanied by Eros Pasquini, my tremendously talented translator, the entire gathered group of over 1,000 pastors began to laugh.  Now, I’ve spoken to some tough audiences before (like the mainly Roman Catholic attendees at the Tim Staples debates in Fullerton, California), but they’ve normally not started laughing until later.  I looked at Eros, and he looked confused as well.  It took a moment for it to sink in, but we eventually figured it out.  Later in the week we decided to give the gathered folks even greater reason for laughter.  Here was the result, and by this you can understand why they were laughing:

 I had to lend Eros a bright tie, since, well, Brazilians just don’t have bright ties.  At least not at the FIEL Conference.  Once Eros and I figured out why they were laughing that first day, I began, “Can you believe it?  I come all the way to Brazil, just to find my long lost brother!”  The hundred or so pastors who could speak English laughed.  Then Eros translated what I said into Portugese, and the other nine hundred pastors laughed (all jokes worked that way: two-step laughter).  Working with Eros was a true privilege.  He is a tremendous translator, and a wonderful brother in the Lord.  I hope I get to visit the saints in Brazil again in the future.  I am thankful to Jamie Howell for sending me these pictures.  Here is one of the entire gathered group prior to one of the sessions.  Some of these folks traveled for days to get to the conference!

10/20/2003:  A Quick Thought on NPism
As I have been speaking a lot lately on “New Perspectivism,” I thought I would share a thought that I was developing while speaking on the subject briefly in St. Paul, Minnesota over the weekend.  First, as I was flying up there, I had been giving thought to how NPism “flattens out” some of the most precious and full truths of the Reformed faith.  Consistently applied it really leaves no room for  such precious truths as the union of the elect with Christ, the specificity of the giving of a particular people by the Father to the Son, (John 6), etc.  Even if an advocate of NPism were to claim such beliefs, the foundation just isn't there: without inerrancy and the consistency of the revelation of God en toto such doctrines are simply not tenable (which is why historic Reformed theology has held such a high view of Scripture).  This then led, during the seminar, to the thought that the forcing of a monochrome, one-dimensional concept of dikaiosu,nh qeou/ (the righteousness of God) leaves it so bereft of the beauty that men have lived and died for over the past centuries.  Wright's tremendously forced reading of 2 Cor. 5:21, for example, illustrates this.  By insisting that the phrase can only mean God's covenant faithfulness, and cannot refer to a righteousness that comes from God (i.e., is imputed to the believer, the righteousness of Christ), Wright is forced to say that this passage is simply saying that the apostles are the embodiment of God's covenant faithfulness.  Likewise, Phil. 3:9 is reduced to a statement that Paul wishes to be right with God on God's own grounds rather than on the grounds of Jewish national symbols.  The rich depth of color that is the biblical concept of righteousness is forced into an artificially shallow monochrome concept that simply does not do justice to the fullness of biblical revelation.
     By way of addition to this section...I recently saw an article by J. Ligon Duncan being panned on an AAPC-oriented site (notice the strange confluence again).  Actually, the person was just applauding someone else who was blasting the article.  As soon as I started reading the referenced article, I knew the Duncan article must be good, since I could tell the author had no idea what he was talking about.  So I tracked it down and yes, indeed, it is a great article on NPism.  Click here to read it.