Mark Driscoll mocks the Sinlessness of Jesus Christ

“If you’re tempted to these sorts of things — including sexual sin — some of you say, “Now Mark, Jesus wasn’t sexually tempted.” Well, of course he was — 30 something year old single man who had women who adored him. You don’t think he ever wanted the comfort of a woman? You don’t think he ever got tired of going to bed by himself? You don’t think that he didn’t once want to have intimate relations with a woman? He was tempted.”
(Mark Driscoll – “How Human was Jesus?”, October 15th 2006.)

How is this rubbish defensible from one who claims to be a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ?  This is the same thing as saying that Jesus Christ was tempted to lust after Mary Magdalene as others have claimed.  The next thing we will hear is that the thoughts of the Lord Jesus Christ did equal sin until He (the Lord) actually acted upon those thoughts —– Oh wait a minute, never mind, he did say that also!

This is the same man who claims that the heresy teaching Joel Osteen is a Christian brother and the “happiest Christian preacher” out there.  This is the same man who claims the Bible is completely silent on whether Jesus COULD have sinned.

This is the same man who is being endorsed by a man who has in the past stood for the truth of God’s Word.  He is being endorsed by a man who it seemed would not have endorsed much less allowed to preach in his pulpit a man who teaches the things that Driscoll believes.

I am afraid that I am one of those who take a stand for Biblical separation.  These issues are NOT matters of secondary separation.  They are clearly defined matters which require an explanation from one who has demeaned the office of elder by his caustic, vulgar, offensive, Christ-dishonouring speech (Driscoll) and also a Biblical explanation from those who are willing to openly endorse such nonsense without calling such a one to account.

It is a mockery to say that such a one who openly (and seemingly) with no remorse and repentance and no chastisement or discipline even has the Spirit of God dwelling within him.  The Bible makes it clear that by their fruits you shall know them.  While the ultimate judgment is in the hands of the Almighty Sovereign of the Universe, I believe that it would behoove Christian leaders to start being more discerning in what and who they allow into their pulpits.

Sadly, I believe that based on the writings and warning by the apostle Paul, it can be concluded that John Piper is gravely in error in allowing this man to preach at Bethlehem Baptist Church.  He is wrong for not condemning the language and for waffling on the issue.  I have serious concerns that such endorsements will just as surely lead true believers down wrong paths as what men like J.I. Packer did when being willing to embrace Colson and Neuhaus as brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grieving for the downhill slides in the church,

The Desert Pastor

********** EDITED WITH ADDITION BELOW **********

James 1:15 says, “Then, when desire (lust) has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”

The word used for lust in this verse means “a longing (especially for what is forbidden), concupiscence, desire, lust (after).”

Desire is defined by Princeton as “the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state.”

For those who are trying to smooth over the harm that Mark Driscoll is doing, it won’t work – at least, not with those who seek to be discerning.  Even if his only problem is that he used a poor choice of words, he has had plenty of time since 2006 to make this right.  His verbage indicates that Jesus wanted/desired what He could not have.  He also made it clear that Jesus had an unsatisfied state.  This explicitly demeans the sinlessness of Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ had need of nothing, and He certainly did not “long for/want/desire/etc” the company of a woman to “satisfy” His flesh!

*************** PER MBAKER’S RECOMMENDATION ***************

**** I AM ADDING THE FOLLOWING COMMENT AS OF 11/29/2008 ****

Thanks again for your comments. We have no problems here at DefCon considering the issue of Mark Driscoll from a biblical perspective. The problem is that when we do his followers trot out the “do not judge” line. When we address his vulgar language and sexual innuendos about the Lord Jesus Christ, we are told that MD is merely trying to be culturally relevant.

If you are truly interested in further conversation, may I recommend that you go to the following link:

http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/search?q=driscoll

Read all the posts by Steven Camp that have been written from a carefully worded position that I believe is honouring to the Lord Jesus Christ. Those blogs have more than enough information showing the heresy that Mark is teaching and his connections with people like T.D. Jakes and the heresy of Oneness teaching, connections with the emergent church and the contemplative movement that is taking many within so-called new-evangelical by storm.

For the record, we do NOT hate Mark Driscoll. However, we do believe that he is disqualified from currently being a minister of the gospel. We also believe that instead of being openly rebuked that there are other ministers such as John Piper and Joshua Harris who are openly endorsing this man.

I would challenge ANY reader from a Biblical perspective ONLY (not your personal feelings) to prove that Mark Driscoll is theologically correct in his belief on the doctrine of imputation (as just one example) or that he somehow manages to qualify as a pastor (when such drivel as he preaches and teaches and such language would not have been tolerated even 10-15 years ago from mainline evangelical pulpits.

The Desert Pastor

Who will be sharing the stage with John Piper?

The list of those invited to speak at John Piper’s 2008 National Conference includes Mark Driscoll (see this post from Coram Deo). In the following video of John Piper, he does his best to “defend” and “justify” why he has invited Mark Driscoll.

But while the debate rages over Mark Driscoll’s appearance at this conference, it seems that there’s much less  discussion over another individual who is scheduled to speak at this same conference. His name is Paul Tripp. And Paul Tripp has a little video in which he discusses What makes bad language bad?

I was hesitant to post the video of Paul Tripp due to its nature (I refused to watch the whole thing myself) but I think it illustrates for people the severity by which John Piper is compromising by having people like Driscoll and Tripp at his conference.

I have reservations about posting the video on DefCon, but for those who simply wouldn’t believe it if I told them about it, here’s the link to the video of Paul Tripp’s flippant use of profanity (you have been warned).

Longing for the preachers of old.

Be prepared to witness one of the most pointless, narcissistic, self-centered, and shallow preaching testimony drivel in just under six minutes that you’ll ever subject your senses to.

This monologue is completely devoid of any reference to Jesus Christ and not supported by even one shred of Scripture, but it fits perfectly in today’s mile-wide, inch-deep church of “entertain me.”

After watching this video you will long even that much more for the preachers of old.

For some background and to better understand the foolishness that she’s talking about, see this post, this post and this post.

Book review: “Justification and Regeneration” by Charles Leiter.

I recently completed the book Justification and Regeneration by Charles Leiter (with a forward by Paul Washer). This was a great book that explained in the simplest of terms the difference between justification and regeneration in the life of a believer.

It’s a quick and easy read and I highly recommend this book, especially to those who struggle to understand the difference between justification and regeneration.

You can purchase the book from Monergism. Thanks to Tom Rayborn from Christ Church Alton for sending me this book.

John MacArthur on Mark Driscoll

John MacArthur

If anyone is interested in understanding John MacArthur’s position on Mark Driscoll you can read about it here, but as far as his position on Piper’s invitation to Driscoll to appear and speak at his 2008 Desiring God Conference…well…only time will tell.

From his December 11th, 2006 article entitled “Grunge Christianity? Counterculture’s Death-Spiral and the Vulgarization of the Gospel” MacArthur well says:

“Worldly preachers seem to go out of their way to put their carnal expertise on display—even in their sermons. In the name of connecting with “the culture” they want their people to know they have seen all the latest programs on MTV; familiarized themselves with all the key themes of “South Park”; learned the lyrics to countless tracks of gangsta rap and heavy metal music; and watched who-knows-how-many R-rated movies. They seem to know every fad top to bottom, back to front, and inside out. They’ve adopted both the style and the language of the world—including lavish use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society, much less in the pulpit. They want to fit right in with the world, and they seem to be making themselves quite comfortable there.

Mark Driscoll is one of the best-known representatives of that kind of thinking. He is a very effective communicator—a bright, witty, clever, funny, insightful, crude, profane, deliberately shocking, in-your-face kind of guy. His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.

Driscoll ministers in Seattle, birthplace of “grunge” music and heart of the ever-changing subculture associated with that movement. Driscoll’s unique style and idiom might aptly be labeled “post-grunge.” His language—even in his sermons—is deliberately crude. He is so well known for using profane language that in Blue Like Jazz (p. 133), Donald Miller (popular author and icon of the “Emerging Church” movement, who speaks of Driscoll with the utmost admiration) nicknamed him “Mark the Cussing Pastor.”

I don’t know what Driscoll’s language is like in private conversation, but I listened to several of his sermons. To be fair, he didn’t use the sort of four-letter expletives most people think of as cuss words—nothing that might get bleeped on broadcast television these days. Still, it would certainly be accurate to describe both his vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. In every message I listened to, at least once he veered into territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit.”

See part two by clicking here.

Boston’s Old South Meeting House

On a recent vacation, my wife and I spent a day in Boston visiting some interesting historic sights. The Old South Meeting House, where we stopped first, was a Puritan church building. (The Puritans never called their buildings churches, as they recognized that the church is the people who make up the body of Christ.) The building held many types of meetings with a variety of famous orators, including George Whitfield. It’s most well-known, however, for the meeting in which 5,000 colonists gathered to discuss the British tax on tea. When Samuel Adams gave the pre-arranged signal to begin the tea party by saying, “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country” the Sons of Liberty stormed out and emptied three tea ships of their cargo.

Today, the Old South Meeting House is a museum, with displays for each phase of the structure’s history. These include statues of some important people who have been involved in the history of the building. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, has been honored with a statue for her stance on freedom of speech. She wanted to speak at the meeting house, but the mayor of Boston prohibited her (and many others) from speaking because of her controversial views. In protest, she covered her mouth with a piece of fabric.

While I support everyone’s right to free speech in public places, I think it’s curious that the museum chose to honor Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist and proponent of genocide. Here are a few of her quotes:

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Woman and the New Race

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble
 
I wonder what the curator’s thought process was when he or she chose to honor Margaret Sanger with a statue. Did the museum’s decision makers realize they were honoring a very evil person—one who sought extermination of an entire group of people? Why didn’t they honor the KKK members or someone else who was prohibited from speaking at the meeting house? As a museum customer, I was offended that someone so wicked had been honored with a life-size statue.

Quotes (381)

Do you know why it says at the end of the age that the Lamb will take wrath on the world? I think it’s because there will be a crystal clear reminder—he didn’t always show up this way, He showed up once in the middle of history as a real Lamb; let Himself be ripped to shreds, mocked, spit upon, dishonored, hung on a stick, treated like dirt in order to rescue us from the wrath of His Father and it was God’s idea. And when He comes the second time it will be so plain: This is the crucified Lamb with the sword coming out of His mouth hewing people in pieces who would not have Him. Know your Christ, Christian, and tremble, with joy.

- John Piper

Your Sermon of the week: “Romans 3″ by Paul Washer.

Your sermon of the week is Romans 3 by Paul Washer. Many of the sermons featured on DefCon are directed toward those already converted (or at least warming a pew). I have been looking for a good sermon for the lost and I think this one may be it.

I think this message provides a clear presentation of the gospel, one that the unconverted outisde the church needs to hear as well as the unconverted inside the church.

Ravi’s crash and burn.

I’ve previously reported on Ravi Zacharias’ failure to preach the Gospel to those following a counterfeit Christ after he was invited to speak at the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City (see here). Then I posted on Ravi’s descent into the abyss of compromise (see here) when he refused to pray in the name of Jesus Christ at the latest National Day of Prayer (Coram Deo even wrote a piece on Ravi’s compromise here).

And now Ravi Zacharias is proving yet again that compromise will always take a man where he never intended to go.

RAVI’S CRASH:

Ravi speaks favorably of Henri Nouwen and can be seen in the following video (at the 5:47 mark) calling this Roman Catholic mystic “one of the greatest saints of recent memory.”


Ken Silva has also weighed in on this here.

RAVI’S BURN:

And what started as a little compromise here and there, seems to have started a snowball rolling for Ravi. Slaughter of the Sheep is reporting that Ravi Zacharias will now be speaking at none other than the Crystal Cathedral at Robert Schuller’s infamous ReThink Conference scheduled for February 2009. Lighthouse Trails is also on top of Ravi’s latest compromise with the rank heretic Schuller in a piece they did here.

Witnessing at the Democratic National Convention

A friend and I met some guys from Nebraska to go witnessing at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last month. It was quite interesting to see the overwhelming police presence, the great number of reporters, and the creepy protestors. The guys from Nebraska have some interesting witnessing techniques that I wasn’t sure about at the beginning, but after observing them in action, I realized they were effective ways to get conversations started easily.

The Nebraskans had three 5’x7’ signs, which they display on poles. The large signs can be seen from quite a distance. The one we were using says, “It’s your choice: Jesus or hell.” Of course, to think about myself standing there with a sign was a little bit of a gut check. Do I really want to take such a bold stand for the gospel? Is this drawing too much attention to me? (Of course, it’s important to exercise wisdom about the proper venue for such a sign.) After seeing many people walk up to these guys and ask questions about the gospel—whether to start a debate or with genuine questions—the effectiveness was evident. They didn’t have to try to start conversations with people. People interested in conversing came to them. At various points, the sign drew quite a crowd of people with whom to discuss our faith.

Witnessing with the sign near the state capitol.

Witnessing with the sign near the state capitol.

 One Nebraska friend also came with a tract specially written for the event titled, “Jesus doesn’t vote Republican” and in fine print, “(Democrat either).” It explained that Jesus, as the King of Kings, appoints to office whomever He wants, and it gave a solid gospel message. We were folding about 200 copies in Office Max when a young man asked if he could read it. He quickly glanced at the title, announced he was with the Ralph Nader campaign, and asked if we would like to have a table at the Green Party event the following day. We told him that we’d be interested, but we didn’t hold out much hope that the offer would stand after they scrutinized the message of the tract. He just said that he’d have a lady from the campaign call us with the details.

After folding the tracts, we went witnessing at the interfaith assembly, packed with people. One of the Nebraskans who stood there with the sign must have had 50 pictures taken of him, and was interviewed by various media outlets multiple times. I handed out about 150 tracts. Most people were busily going wherever they were headed, and not too interested in having conversations, although I did have a couple.

After a couple of hours, we went to the park in front of the state Capitol where the protest parades were beginning. Our original plan was to eat lunch—until we heard a singer in a band performing there said that there would be no Judgment Day. We took that to mean that the people there needed to hear the truth about Judgment Day, and we set up our sign in the park. The people were open to talking; each of us had many good conversations there.

While the other guys were standing with the big sign, they passed me a little sign that said, “Repent for the kingdom of God is near.” I leaned against my leg and passed out tracts to the people who walked past. Several people came up and talked to me. I was interviewed by a Fort Collins radio station, and I gave a quick gospel message. I was also interviewed by a Boulder newspaper. The other guys were interviewed on camera by BET and Al Gore TV and others, so I hope the gospel got on the air somewhere.

The next morning, the lady from the Ralph Nader campaign called, and gave us the details about setting up a table at the rally, which was held at the University of Denver arena. We were the sole Christian table. Others had messages such as stop torturing terrorists, impeach Bush, give Israel to the Palestinians, fight for women’s rights at work, and support the Sierra Club. It was clearly miraculous for us to get the opportunity to pass out tracts and witness inside a far left event.

Our table at the Ralph Nader rally.

Our table at the Ralph Nader rally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The people were nicer than I had expected at all of the events. I’ve found that oftentimes those who hold tolerance as the highest virtue fail to exercise tolerance of Christians, but most people behaved well. There was no shortage of leftists with their far-out ideas, but the worst thing to see was the “sweet,” little, old pro-choice ladies.

I’m sold on the sign evangelism technique. I think every Christian should be handed his or her own huge sign as he or she exits the baptismal waters. Until then, we’ll all have to procure our own.

Jeff Noblit on Church discipline coming to South Carolina.

Wendi from Declared Righteous by Christ Alone asked if I would be willing to publish an advertisement on an upcoming Church discipline conference by Pastor Jeff Noblit. Knowing Pastor Noblit’s uncompromising preaching, I am honored to get the word out.

Exactly one month from today, Pastor Jeff Noblit will be at Holly Ridge Baptist Church in Blacksburg, South Carolina speaking on Church discipline.

A Mormon Mistake

Mormons believe that Jesus is Jehovah, (the LORD in most versions of the Old Testament). I would certainly agree with them on that. Since that is the case, it becomes very easy to refute most of what they believe about Jesus.

Those who adhere to the teachings of Mormonism believe Jesus hasn’t always existed. But Psalm 90:2, referring to Jehovah, says, “…even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” They say you should only pray to the Father, but throughout the Old Testament, people prayed to Jehovah (Genesis 25:21 says, “Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant.”)

Latter-day Saints also believe at least three gods exist: The Father is a god called Elohim, the Holy Spirit is a god, and Jesus is a god. According to the Bible, however, before Jehovah there was no God formed, nor will there be after Him (Isaiah 43:10).

Clearly, whoever came up with the concept that the Father is Elohim and Jesus is Jehovah had zero knowledge of Hebrew. Elohim is the Hebrew word for God, and Jehovah is God’s name (Psalm 83:18). There are dozens of verses that claim Jehovah is Elohim. Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD [Jehovah] he is God [Elohim]; there is none else beside him.”

Furthermore, a belief in three separate gods makes mincemeat out of the first of the Ten Commandments. The first commandment (Exodus 20:3) says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Jehovah wrote that with His finger in stone. If that is Jesus speaking, as the second god, is it blasphemy for Him to say that we should have no gods before Him? What about the Father? If it’s the Father speaking, why is Jesus worshipped by the angels (Hebrews 1:6)? Aren’t the angels obligated to obey the Ten Commandments?

Mormons would like us to believe that the Bible is corrupted, and Joseph Smith was able to restore the truth. They have to believe the Bible is corrupted, because if it weren’t, the LDS church would cease to exist. Here’s a chicken or egg question for you: Did Mormonism come about because Joseph Smith thought the Bible was corrupt, or did he teach the Bible was corrupt because he came up with Mormonism?

While there are so many misconceptions about the Trinity, it is the concept that makes sense out of the entire Bible. All of the non-Trinitarian ideas-including those of the Mormons-fall apart when viewed through a Scriptural lens.

Would a Christian vote for Barack Hussein Obama?

Not could a Christian vote for Barack Hussein Obama, but would a Christian vote for Barack Hussein Obama?

When I say “Christian” I don’t mean a lukewarm, name-only, self-deceived “Christian,” but a true, born-again, regenerated Christian (think: the Apostle Paul vs Brian McLaren).

So what are those professing Christians of the Matthew 25 Network in the previous video endorsing?

Quotes (379)

awpink.jpg Nothing riles the natural man more and brings to the surface his innate, inveterate enmity against God than to press upon him the eternality, the freeness, and the absolute sovereignty of divine grace. That God should have formed His purpose from everlasting, without in anywise consulting the creature, is too abasing for the unbroken heart. That grace cannot be earned or won by any efforts of man is too self-emptying for self-righteousness. That grace singles out whom it pleases to be its favored objects arouses hot protests from haughty rebels. The clay rises up against the Potter and asks, “Why hast Thou made me thus?” A lawless insurrectionist dares to call into question the justice of divine sovereignty.

- A. W. Pink

1886 – 1952

The Biblical Perspective on Ray Boltz

HT: Mark Moring – Christianity Today liveblog

“Ray Boltz, who sold about 4.5 million records before retiring from Christian music a few years ago, came out of the closet Friday to announce that he’s gay.

“I’d denied it ever since I was a kid,” Boltz, 55, told the magazine. “I became a Christian, I thought that was the way to deal with this and I prayed hard and tried for 30-some years and then at the end, I was just going, ‘I’m still gay. I know I am.’ And I just got to the place where I couldn’t take it anymore … when I was going through all this darkness, I thought, ‘Just end this.’”

Boltz will perform in September at (two Bible mocking, Christ-dishonouring, wicked acceptance of that which is abomination before God) congregations that are part of a growing network of churches that are not biblical in any aspect.

Boltz is known for his songs “Thank You”, “Watch the Lamb,” “The Anchor Holds,” and “I Pledge Allegiance to the Lamb.”

Boltz also told (a homosexual newspaper) that he doesn’t want to get into debates about Scripture and has no plans to “go into First Baptist or an Assembly of God church and run in there and say, ‘I’m gay and you need to love me anyway.’”

For him, the decision to come out is much more personal.

“This is what it really comes down to,” he says. “If this is the way God made me, then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”

******************** – Emphasis in the above is mine.

Our hearts break for the misery that this man is putting his family through.  What is sad is that many will simply reject the man out of hand without any prayer for repentance.  This is not what we are doing or advocating to our readers.  If it was not for the grace of God, it could be any one of us struggling with such sins.  However, to be biblical, ALL of our sins are just as heinous as each others.

I am thankful that God is a forgiving God, and a merciful God.  He can forgive Ray Boltz just as He does with us when we sin against His holiness.  Sadly, there is nothing in anything that I have read that would indicate ANY remorse for sin.  This goes beyond the recognition that Ray’s sins are no worse than ours.  The situation here is that a man who claims the name of Christ is deliberately, willfully and consistently breaking the commands of Scripture with nothing but excuses for his wicked, perverted, immoral behavior and lifestyle.

Ray states that he “became a Christian” because he thought it was the way to deal with the perversions of his mind.  Wrong answer!  I became a true believer (a Christian) because the Lord Jesus Christ convicted me of my sins and I realized that I was headed for a Christ-less eternity unless I came by grace through faith alone and accepted the finished work of Calvary!  I didn’t come to Christ (and neither does any other true believer) as a way to deal with trying to overcome sins or to better myself.

His statement about not wanting to get into debates about Scripture marks Ray as one who delights in his sin.  In doing so, he seeks to make a mockery of the Word of God in many different areas.

He concludes that “It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be.”  Mr. Boltz, I am afraid that you are VERY WRONG!  God did not make you or anyone else to live a perverted lifestyle that demeans His creation of man, and the institution of marriage which God ordained to be between 1 man and one woman.  And, yes, if there is NO REPENTANCE, God will send you and many others to hell – but the reason will be because you reject the truth of Scripture and remain in unbelief.

One last note, what Scripture verse tells us that we draw closer or feel closer to God because we don’t hate ourselves anymore.  What a load of new-age nonsense!  The ONLY way we will ever draw close to God is by cleansing our hands, we who are sinners.  Cleansing our hands does not take place when we choose to live in habitual sin which is condemned by God.

Our decision is that we cannot condone Ray in any aspect of his life or his music.  We have made the decision that this man who has been living a lie for all of these years is one who from whom we are to separate.  I can no more permit his music to remain a part of my selection than I could Elton John or Kirk Talley (for the Southern Gospel music afficionados).  I believe to do so would be an affront to the holiness of God.  Others may choose differently, but they only have to answer to God.

“As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” – Joshua 24:15

Praying for godly sorrow and repentance,

The Desert Pastor


Blasphemous association or divine doctrine?

Question: Would there ever be an occasion in which you would equate God the Father on the same plane as anything or anyone else?

Would you ever combine or associate God with anyone or anything in which the relation would indicate or imply equality? For example, would you ever assert that God and electricity are on equal footing? What about God and man being equal? What about God and an angel?

Most of you would rightly say, “No! That is not only contrary to the revealed nature of God, but it’s blasphemous.”

For those who are not sure about the point I’m trying to make, permit me to be more specific with the following examples:

- Would you ever do anything in the name of the Father, the force, and the power?

- Would you ever perform any work in the name of the Father, Peter, and Paul?

- Would you ever administer a sacrament in the name of the Father, Gabriel (the angel), and Michael (the arch angel)?

Where am I going with all of this?

Well, I was thinking recently about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their rejection of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. There are so many examples in Scripture to support the Trinity and they are used with abundant frequency in its defense. But there’s one that isn’t used quite as much as I believe it should be, especially when dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses. That example would be found in Matthew 28:19.

The JWs are ardent proponents of the name “Jehovah” as being the most important name in the universe (in spite of some solid biblical text proving otherwise). So when baptizing new believers into the faith (in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit), why does Jehovah share the uniqueness and holiness of His name with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit who the JWs claim are just an angel and an “active force” (like electricity)?

Let me be more clear; would a jealous God who will not give His glory to another, allow Himself to be associated with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in the administration of one of the two sacraments of Christianity in a manner that makes Him and His name equal to that of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit if they were not equal to Him?

It is hardly comprehensible to imagine Jehovah would do such a thing, especially when He has asked, “Who is like Me” knowing that no one is like Him. Why would Jehovah not only permit but instruct believers to be baptized “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” if they were not equal?

It’s Official: Islamic Law Has Been Adopted In Britain

Rowan Williams might actually be a prophet!

Seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain, it’s now official that Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

Sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Source: Times Online.

We Aren’t Monkeying Around, Darwin; The Apology Is Sincere

Rowan WilliamsThe Church of England has made an official apology to Charles Darwin for “misunderstanding his theory of evolution”, 126 years after the latter’s passing.

Elaborating, officials said that senior bishops of the Church wanted to “atone for the vilification” heaped on Darwin by their predecessors when he first proposed in his theory that man descended from apes.

You see, those fundamentalists (or what I’d call Bible-believing Christians), according to the Church of England led by Rowan Williams, are just a bunch of ignorant country bumpkins, believing in a six-day Creation story. The Church of England is modern, and love science — that’s why we think that our teachings shouldn’t be incompatible with science.

The Rev. Dr. Malcolm Brown, director of mission and public affairs of the Archbishops’ Council, the governing body in the Church of England, writes:

People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and Churches are no exception. When a big new idea emerges that changes the way people look at the world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights.The Church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy and has since realised its error. Some Church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

So it is important to think again about Darwin’s impact on religious thinking, then and now.

Dr. Brown further argues that “…there is nothing incompatible between the scientific theories adopted by Darwin and Christian teaching.”

Duh, of course not, evolution and Creation are perfectly compatible, because the God we believe in isn’t necessarily the one mentioned in the Bible. Ours is a product of our own imagination, oh, very much like the golden calf in Exodus, i.e. an idol.

It also does not matter that we pick and choose what to believe in the Bible, fully teaching what we like and placing caveats on what we don’t. So, in this case, while we think that God did indeed make the basic forms of life, evolution was necessary to turn apes into men. We weren’t made in the image of God, apes and monkeys were.

Source: MailOnline.

Quotes (378)

How can God ever “justify the ungodly” without becoming an abomination to Himself? “He who says to the wicked, ‘You are righteous,’ peoples will curse him, nations will abhor him [Proverbs 24:24]. How can God say to sinners like us, “You are righteous,” without violating His own character? How can God ever save us from Himself and His own righteousness and justice? . . . Repentant sinners know that they deserve to be punished, and that it would not be right for them not to be. They know that God cannot just “sweep their sins under the rug” and forget about them. Hence, the cry of their hearts is, “How can a just God ever smile upon me? How can this burden of guilt be removed? How can God pronounce a blessing upon me? How can a man like me be in the right before God!” There is only one answer to this dilemma. Someone has to pay for the sinner’s sins. Justice must be satisfied. Either it will be satisfied by the sinner’s own suffering forever in Hell, or it must be satisfied by someone else on the sinner’s behalf.

- Charles Leiter