How About This

This is a great clip. A two year old can learn the catechism if taught with patience. I'm going to ask my daughter if we can't start teaching our grand children. (Hat Tip for the clip to Gairney Bridge).

Spurgeon and Lewis

Spurgeon said of himself:

I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His glory. I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty grace has saved me from going down into the pit. Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual life—no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good.

Spurgeon said this in giving a defense of Calvinism. I've been pushing, a little, against the philosophy that man has free will in my Church. Spurgeon did not believe it, Calvin did not believe, and Augustine did not believe it. In fact Augustine had quite a debate with a British Monk named Pelagius over this very issue. Oh, and I don't believe it either.

Most of those I talk to today blindly side with Pelagius and are not interested in discussing the subject. Others are of the mindset that, "all I know is what I learned as a child, I'm not going to argue about it because nothing is really settled that way." "I know I was lost, and I know I chose to get saved, and that's it."

When confronting these kinds of people I'm always stunned at the lackidaisical attitude with which they dismiss something on which eternity hinges. Do we choose God, or does He choose us?

I don't have the mental prowess to figure out the underlying processes that would make a human so unconcerned about eternity but there are those who do, that is why I read books.

C.S. Lewis figured out what is going on in this instance. He wrote a book it. The name of the book is The Screwtape Letters. It is about a head Demon, Screwtape, teaching a protege, Wormwood, how to neutralize people who might be tempted to consider the Church as a way of life. Here is what he told him:

Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false,” but as “academic” or “practical,” “outworn” or “contemporary,” “conventional”or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That is the sort of thing he cares about.

Lewis was almost prophetic with that one. Look where are today. We have Churches that don't talk of hell because it is unpleasant, and a President who can't decide if he is Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian.

One thing is certain Jargon will contiue to be used as the backbone of too many ministries just as it is the mainstay of our National life. Wormwood appears to have learned his lessons well.

Law and Order

Tonight I was watching an episode of Law and Order when a thought stuck me. Before I get into the thought, however, let me set the scene a little.

First of all, I believe Law and Order to be the last TV series written for those of us older than 10. It is about the only series which actually requires more than 3 seconds of thought to even attempt a solution to the crime. And it is one of the last "gory" kinds of shows that does not believe it necessary to show guts oozing, blood spurting, and heads being blown-apart with slow motion bullets. Law and Order leaves some things to that old-fashioned thing ... what was it called ... I remember ... the imagination.

What I saw tonight was an episode in which a deranged young man had taken a hostage and was holding her at knife point in a store. A police negotiator was unable to gain any headway with him so he exited the scene informing the Detectives in charge the criminal wanted a lawyer immediately or he would kill the hostage.

There were no defense lawyers on scene so the police asked if the Assistant District Attorney on scene would try to talk him into surrendering. She agreed. In gaining his surrender she failed to notify him she was in fact an Assistant District Attorney. He eventually surrendered after confessing, but his real defense attorney tried to get dismissal of the charges claiming the D.A. had mislead the poor boy by not informing him she was not his lawyer and that she was in fact a prosecutor.

She did commit an ethical violation and a violation of the commandment which says, "thou shalt not bear false witness." In the process of investigation charges were brought against the A.D.A., for violation of the ethical code of the State Bar of New York. She was found guilty on these charges. It appears that civil courts still maintain that withholding the whole truth, telling half-truths, intentionally misleading our "neighbor" - in this case a criminal - is in fact an ethical violation and a crime punishable under the law.

O.K., back to my thought. American Law is enmeshed with the Biblical law given to Moses known as the Ten Commandments.  In those commandments are such things as don't murder, don't commit adultery, (still valid in some states) but more pertinent to my story, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor." People sometimes still have to say "so help me God," when they testify in court. And right here is where my thought blossomed. Lying in an American Court is an accountable ethical violation designed to insure the integrity of our system of Justice.

Isn't it so that the system of worship espoused in the Bible is also based on an accountable system of ethical standards designed to insure the integrity of our contact with God? Jesus said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Mat 5:17)

My question, then, is this: How it is that so many preachers believe the "ends justify the means" when it comes to supposedly "winning lost souls" for Christ? Osteen tells his audience they can be saved by repeating a prayer at the end of his "motivational speech" in his "Church." Schuller has convinced thousands they are saved all the while hiding from them the fact that hell does exist, thereby hiding the possibility of spending eternity there is real. These kinds of people believe nothing is achieved by telling people the whole story of the Gospel. Couldn't it be said that even what we consider inconsequential little things, which may mislead the lost into something about which they do not know the whole truth,  are ethical violations of God's law? I think so.

But, hey what do I know. I'm not a lawyer nor a preacher. I just think it wrong to tell someone they can be assured of their salvation and know they are on their way to heaven because they repeated a prayer sometime, somewhere, without informing them that scripture says insurance of salvation is evident through a changed life, not just saying they "accept Christ as savior." (Is 43:11) Moreover, whatever happened to telling the lost about the concept of "repentance." (Mk 2:17)

Maybe those who withhold vital information don't understand God's ethical  law. They should watch Law and Order.  They might actually learn something.

Christian Maturity and Witness

Not often do we get to see a true mature Christian on national telvision. For such a young man to believe so strongly is truly a blessing.

Who among us would tell the world God is in charge in loss of pride and in loss of physical prowess? This young man is a true Christian!

I can't be a Catholic

CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!

CANON V.- If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man’s freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"!

I guess I'll never be a Catholic. I happen to believe what Scripture actually says about the ability of men to "accept Christ" as Savior. In a nut-shell it says we are dead in the water, and cannot assist in our recovery. There are too many verses affirming this to list, so, I won't try. Having said that,  I "...affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man's freewill is lost and extinguished...." therefore, whatever I am today is a direct result of a rebirth by the Holy Spirit on my being. I had nothing to do with it. That makes me "anathema" according to the Council of Trent and the Catholic Church.

I have another problem now however, it is that my Baptist church teaches the same thing. so now I'm beginning to wonder what I am. I'm probably just a Christian, since I really didn't choose to be what I am. God did it to me and that's all there is to it. [note: The technical terminology for this is monergism].

I read this analogy about the idea that "all" men are fully capable as fallen humans, to "choose to accept Christ as savior." [note: The technical word for this is synergism; it is the doctrine that man must cooperate with God through his "free will" to attain salvation].

Let us consider the following analogy to illustrate synergism. Developers purchase some undeveloped land to create a new housing subdivision. They hire contractors to build houses on the land. The contractors hire electricians to wire each house for electricity. The power company is hired to bring electric power to the subdivision and hook each house up to the power. The houses are sold and occupied. If one drove through the subdivision at 11:30 p.m., and noticed that the lights were on in some houses but not others, who would they consider responsible for that fact? Since every house was equally wired with power and occupied by a person capable of turning on a switch, the only reason the lights would be on in some houses but not others is that in some cases the occupants turned them on. The occupants are the responsible parties.

That is what Catholicism teaches and what my Baptist church teaches regarding the salvation of the lost. One man told me, "I knew I was lost and needed Jesus, and that's all I know: So, I chose to accept Christ as my personal savior." In other words this man tells everyone HE turned on the "light switch." Why? Because he "felt" the need to do so.

I wouldn't be writing about this if wasn't for the fact that our Pastor is very disturbed that the "synergists" (those who have free-will) don't participate in church stuff very well and he can't figure out why? Maybe it's because they either can't find the light switch, or they really do enjoy sitting in the dark. I read on Al Mohler's blog this morning that one of these kinds of people defined herself this way:

(I am) "culturally, though not theologically" Christian

I think that phrase pretty well defines too many "Christians" in America today.

Mysterious Ways

Recently, I had a long conversation with a friend who is a Pastor in a local church. This man and I were talking about the ways in which the Holy Spirit works. One of the points made was that His providential control of everything is astonishing if one is looking for it and aknowledges it.

For example, my post yesterday was about subtle changes in church structure that effect, often harmfully,  what we are trying to achieve as we reach out to the world with the gospel. After posting that, I spent a long time wondering about my own thoughts if they were appropriate or just nit-picking. I do that a lot.

This morning, as I was reading through some of my favorite blogs I read at Pyromaniacs (The Lie of Liberal Theology):

"...the worst blows to the advancement of the gospel always come from people within the visible church—usually leaders and influential teachers.

They'll insist they believe in evangelical principles, but they won't actually preach the gospel without abridging or modifying it somehow. They're just trying to keep up to date, they assure us—even as they undermine the very foundations of faith.

Abridging or modifying the gospel happens in small ways in attempts to somehow not antagonize those hearing it. For instance, because of perceived time constraints, there are times when only a portion of the actual gospel message is preached. Seldom do we hear the demand from Christ for repentance as the initial opening of the Spirit's work in the lost. Jesus opened with "repent" (Mat 4:17) when he preached, we generally open with "God loves you," or some other form of sentiment meant to sooth the "felt needs" of those we are trying to reach.

Christ's preaching was generally antagonistic. He knew to whom he was speaking and he knew that without a direct confrontation with the problem of "self-interest" (pride) there could be no change and no salvation.

When Christian doctrine is subjected to liberalizing influences, the inevitable result is a profoundly destructive drift that weakens churches, breeds skepticism, and quickly trades away the gospel for a differently-nuanced message. The long view of church history provides ample proof of that.

As if reading the article at Pyromaniacs wasn't enough to convince me to leave my post from yesterday as is, the Pyro team insisted I read this month's 9Marks Ejournal. The first paragraph seemed to provide further assurance that the Holy Spirit does indeed control everything. I read:

In general, the danger of liberalism, which we define broadly as gospel-denial within the church, occurs when we allow the world's demands to ring a little too loudly in our ears. It occurs when we let the world dictate the terms of our beliefs or practices. Or when we let the world determine, "These things are good and worthy, not those things," or, "This is the salvation we are looking for." As soon as we let the world influence the terms of the church's life and mission, we have let another authority enter the house and tie up the king of the church, Christ.

When I wrote my post I was totally unaware of these others. One was just posted today, and the Journal I did not know was on line. The Holy Spirit does work in mysterious ways.

Worship or Paganism

Our church, not long ago,  gave in to secular ideology by instituting what it calls "blended worship." The intent was, I think, to somehow use catchy, rythym-based choruses with words and images digitally presented on two large screens in the mistaken belief the "young people" will somehow become more involved in "church stuff." They haven't, and there is a consequence in using worldly ideology in an attempt to promote God. (There is no other way to describe what we are doing).

I have always believed Worship should be about God not about what "young people," or old people, for that matter, wanted. We have had a couple of people leave us to go elsewhere over this issue. They wanted a different style of music. Music style should never be a reason for contention and if music were properly used it wouldn't be. If we sang scripture as instructed in the Bible there would be no room for argument, people would define their loyalties when they quit.

Scripture read at length, taught in depth, sung in congregation and prayed at length is not popular so we don't do that in our Church. We pay lip-service to those things, but that's about all. We are, I suppose, a typical American congregation. Few of us read books, let alone the Bible, and our attention spans are getting shorter by the day. We have become so immersed in the idea that digital technology is a gift from God, we sometimes forget to turn off our cell phones for the Sunday morning "Worship" service.

Worship should be about "renewing our minds" but there are so few people who actually think anymore I'm not sure they are aware that concept is a command of God. (Rom. 12:2) We are so far gone now that one of the "choruses" we sing has images that are idolatrous, if not blasphemous. It is a repetitious ditty which show some of the national flags of the world. One of those flags is the Iranian.

The Iranian flag has script on it and symbolism. Here is a description of the flag:

(The flag is made up of) three equal horizontal bands of green (top), white, and red; the national emblem (a stylized representation of the word Allah in the shape of a tulip, a symbol of martyrdom) in red is centered in the white band; ALLAH AKBAR (God is Great) in white Arabic script is repeated 11 times along the bottom edge of the green band and 11 times along the top edge of the red band.

So, by dumbing ourselves down to be historically, intellectually, spiritually, vacuous we have inadvertently changed our "worship" into an idolatrous perveyor of foreign gods. The only word in English to describe this is: Pagan.

Here is what one article at the Banner of Truth has to say about this:

Pagan worship is non-cognitive, but we are called to worship God with our minds, and that which we are supposed to have fill our minds is scripture. The language of Christian worship is scripture. We are either reading it or expanding upon it through exposition, singing it, or praying it. We do this because faith comes by hearing the word of God; it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation.

The article ends with this:

"People are coming to church and just hearing a bunch of talk and singing a bunch of songs," says the preacher. But faith comes by hearing the word of God, and if it's not being preached, sung, read, and prayed, and if the content of our services are decreasingly Biblical, it is an ominous thing that is happening - a tragedy unfolding before us of monumental proportions.

God help us! (Hosea 7:2)

Mass. Message to Democrats

Last night the Democrats lost one of their most hallowed seats in the Senate. That of the late Ted Kennedy. The man, who never held a real job, is supposedly the icon for all that is American. It is amazing what money will buy: Power, prestige, and propaganda. Finally, however, God awakened a self-centered, sleeping public and sent a message to Washington through the democratic process.

In thinking about that, I wondered if there might some image to represent what the voters in Mass. did. Here's what I think best represents the message they sent:

I leave it to your imagination to assign identity to the person, group, institution, or whatever that is being decapitated. Personally I like the idea of the Arrogant Party being the recipient. In this case that would be the Obamacrats. In my imagination that would be Sen. Brown raising the axe.

Some Apologetic Thoughts

Not long ago I heard a Sermon in which the speaker insisted that God agonizes over the plight of every unsaved person. This, of course, as I recall, was during an "altar call" in which the speaker was doing his best to "win souls" for Christ.

Winning souls is an activity commanded for all Christians. However, I do not subscribe to the idea that an entity which is all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent, and the Creator of everything would "agonize" over something He controls. That would be like me agonizing over the misspelled words that pepper my posts: If I don't like them I change them. I do what I please with my blog and God tells us he does what he pleases with his creation.

His doing is not whimsical like mine often is, as he has revealed through Scripture he does have a purpose for what he does. His purposes are not entirely clear to humans, but enough of them have been revealed for us to know there are some things men say that are simply beyond reason or logic.

The phrase "god agonizes" (or worries, or frets) is one such statement.

I think one of the saddest things I see in modern Christianity is the concept that God has emotional sensibilities like ours. We attribute to God's love, for instance, the human response of emotional delight. Since God says He is "love" and he is not something created, love must be volitional. Yet we insist that we are to love the lost as God loves them, all the while thinking, erroneously, that means a feigned-emotional human response to them. Personally I know many, many, people whom I cannot love as I love my children. I don't really have a good feeling about murderers, rapists, and sadists. Does that mean I have disobeyed God's command to "love my neighbor as myself." I don't think so. It means our definition for love is distorted and twisted. It means we define love inductively - i.e. we begin our thinking from ourselves toward God - when in fact all of our thinking should be deductive, or starting from the revealed Word toward ourselves and our activities.

If we thought deductively in all things, (i.e. starting from the first principle of God's revealed word) as we should, we would note from Scripture that love means to take care of others, whether we like them or not.  We are to be the good Samaritans to the World. When we begin living in this manner, we do not have to wonder if we are "loving" our neighbor as ourselves. We will feed them if they are hungry, we will give them water if they need it, we will tell them of Christ, and we will fulfill the Law of God in so doing.

This is volitional caring and it is the exact form of  "love" God has toward all His creation. He is not emotionally attached as we are, he is fulfilling his will in all things. Some men are created for salvation, the Bible says "many," (Heb. 9:28) and some are created for destruction. (Rom. 9:22). God's love toward his Son's Church is the volitional motivation behind both conditions. Some men don't like this idea so they inductively begin attributing to God human ideas and emotions eventually going so far astray by saying things like, "God agonizes over one lost sinner" thinking they have spoken something profound when, in fact, they are actually teaching heresy.

If we refuse to read, study, think, or ponder about these kinds of things it isn't long until we say things like "all you have to do to be saved is believe," without explaining human-creatures can't do that without a rebirth by the Word. (1Pe 1:23)). Or worse yet we assert, "God did not make a bunch of little robots," in claiming our human-right to choose to become a Christian - or not.

Cornelius Van Til as quoted by Greg Bahnsen said:

The traditional [apologetic] method...is based on the assumption that man has some measure of autonomy, that the space-time world is in some measure "contingent" and that man must create for himself his own epistemology in an ultimate sense.


[Apologetics] traditional method was concessive on these basic points on which it should have demanded surrender! As such, it was always self-frustrating. The traditional method had explicitly built into it the right and ability of the natural man, apart from the work of the Spirit of God, to be the judge of the claim of the authoritative Word of God. It is man who, by means of his self-established intellectual tools, puts his "stamp of approval" on the Word of God and then, only after this grand act, does he listen to it. [emphasis added] God's Word must first pass man's tests of good and evil, truth and falsity. But once you tell a non-Christian this, why should he be worried by anything else that you say. [sic] You have already told him that he is quite alright just the way he is! Then Scripture is not correct when it talks of "darkened minds," "willful ignorance," "dead men," and "blind people"! [emphasis added] With this method the correctness of the natural man's problematics is endorsed. That is all he needs to reject the Christian faith." (Cornelius Van Til - cited by Bahnsen, PA. pp. 13-14)

 I'll  close this with a quote from Vincent Cheung, "...the Spirit exercises active and direct control over the minds of all men, causing thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and motives in them according to his own will.  The Bible is the usual instrument - the intellectual content that he works with as he controls men's hearts - that he uses to convert and to sanctify, but also to harden, the hearts of men. And men are the usual instruments by which he propagates the contents of the Bible." (The Bible, the Preacher, and the Spirit, Vincent Cheung, 2006, pp 15)

Read Isa 45:7 if you have problems with any of the above.

Al Mohler on Preaching

Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary posted some very enlightening remarks on preaching. Here is what he what he said in conclusion:

This raises an interesting question: Is the marginalization of biblical preaching in so many churches a cause or a result of the nation's retreat from Christianity? In truth, it must be both cause and effect. In any event, there is no hope for a recovery of biblical Christianity without a preceding recovery of biblical preaching. That means preaching that is expository, textual, evangelistic, doctrinal, and evangelistic. In other words, preaching that will take a lot longer than ten minutes and will not masquerade as a form of entertainment.


Time and time again, God's people have been rescued by a recovery of biblical teaching and preaching. The right preaching of the Word of God is the first essential mark of the church. As the Reformers made clear, where that mark is absent, there is no church at all.

The study conducted for the College of Preachers is interesting, if also frightening. But little is gained from asking confused people what kind of preaching they want. The faithful preacher takes as his first and most sacred responsibility the charge to give the congregation the preaching it needs.

In my experience, teaching not preaching, people often do not like to hear what they "need." But, then, that really boils down to being faithful to the task. People wanted to kill Jesus on the spot when he told them they had to repent. After all, our culture, like his, insists it is made up of "good people" and there is nothing to repent.

I wonder how many more classes I would get to teach if I asserted as did Jesus, "you generation of vipers?" (Mat 12:34) Actually I don't wonder, the question is rhetorical, I know: I'd be lucky to escape with my life.

Calvin Defines Us

I haven't read Calvin's Intsitutes of the Christian Religion but some of the blogs I read occasionally quote them. Often the quotes remind me I need to read them, below is one such quote. I took this one from the blog Wittenberg Door and I thank them for it:

"For what is more consonant with faith than to recognize that we are naked of all virtue, in order to be clothed by God? That we are empty of all good, to be filled by him? Blind, to be illuminated by him? Lame, to be made straight by him? Weak, to be sustained by him? To take away from us all occasion for glorying, that he alone may stand forth gloriously and we glory in him? When we say these and like things our adversaries interrupt and complain that in this way we shall subvert some blind light of nature, imaginary preparations, free will, and works that merit eternal salvation . . . For they cannot bear that the whole praise and glory of all goodness, virtue, righteousness, and wisdom should rest with God. But we do not read of anyone being blamed for drinking too deeply of the fountain of living water. The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559"

Clearly, without Christ man has no hope through anything he thinks he can do to be saved. Without Christ's illumination prior to our participation in salvation we are hopeless. We can walk all the altar call aisles, say all the prayers, freely choose to accept Christ (in our dead natural condition), remember the times we did those things, but unless Christ through his Holy Spirit has first pulled us from our grave wherein we are "dead in trespasses and sins" (Col 2:13) we are lost without hope. We can't even assist in this renewing - it is all of Grace.

I think many who believe they are saved, mistakenly believe human temporal abilities to "choose" are co-equal with spiritual abilitites. They are not. We can choose a hamburger or a taco, but until God acts upon us spiritually we cannot choose eternal life with Christ. That life is given to us, whether we like it or not, by God's Grace alone. (Oops! Did I really say that?)  Only after we have been "quickened" spiritually can we or do we want to repent and obey. (2 Cor. 4:2,3,4)

My concern is that when we witness to others of Christ's saving power we often leave out the fact that only He can effectually change us. As lost humans our only hope is to be on our knees begging to be "chosen" by God not the other way around.

Regeneration Thoughts

The Exiled Preacher (link in quote below) has posted some thoughts on "mediated" regeneration. I've not read much about the issue so I'm not at all familiar with the concept. However, having said that, the ideas the Preacher posted are just in line with my thinking on what we call salvation.

Exiled Preacher: "'Since the Spirit's work in regeneration involves the transformation of the whole man, including his cognitive and affective powers, the accompanying of the internal illumination of the Spirit by the external revelation of the word (and vice versa) is altogether appropriate. Since faith involves knowledge, it ordinarily emerges in relationship to the teaching of the gospel found in Scripture. Regeneration and the faith to which it gives birth are seen as taking place not by revalationless divine sovereignty, but within the matrix of the preaching of the word and the witness of the people of God (cf. Rom. 10:1-15). Their instrumentality in regeneration does not impinge upon the sovereign activity of the Spirit. Word and Spirit belong together.' (Contours of Christian Theology: The Holy Spirit, Sinclair B. Ferguson, IVP, 1996, p. 125-126)."

I'm now viewed in my "easy believism" church as "one of those." By that is meant a Calvinist. The phrase is used as a pejorative by many who will not sit down to discuss or attempt to find out what it is I have come to truly believe. That's OK! I don't mind. What I mind is that those who dismiss me so lightly as a kind of kook, are, generally, those who also refuse to study their Bibles. I know this because of the "deer in the headlights" look many of them exhibit when they hear Biblical principles which do not fall in line with "all you have to do is believe." Were that a lone Christian principle there will be a whole bunch of demons in heaven because scripture teaches they also believe. (James 2:19)

J.I. Packer in his small book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, says "...to indulge in long drawn out wheedling for decisions and the deliberate us of lucious music to stir sentiment, tends to produce 'conversions' which are simply psychologicl and emotional upheaval, and not the fruit of spiritual conviction are renewal at all....that appeals for decision will often be made on the basis of inadequate instruction as to what the decision involves and will cost  (emphasis added) and such appeals are no better than a confidence trick.

I'm nowhere near where I would like to be in my studies, but I know this: Once the journey begins, of trying to learn all that is possible for a human to know about God and His Word, it becomes an all enveloping journey. There is nothing I would rather do than try to "renew my mind," and that includes baby-sitting the kids in the picture in my header. Oh! Oh! That reminds me, I have to go pick them up so Mom-to-be can get some rest.

Rules for Writing Well - Reformation21 Blog

Rules for Writing Well - Reformation21 Blog

Posted using ShareThis

A Quote from Vincent Cheung

"...Christianity is the only deductive system with a self-consistent and self-justifying first principle revealed by an almighty omniscient being. The principle is broad enough to yield an adequate number of propositions sufficient to construct a complete worldview that entails no self-contradiction. Therefore, the biblical worldview is the precondition of intelligibility, knowledge, and truth. All other systems of thought cannot make knowledge possible and thus collapse into philosophical skepticism. But since skepticism is self-contradictory, one cannot remain in such a position, and Christianity is the only way out of the epistemological abyss."

Vincent Cheung "Ultimate Questions."

I don't want to go anyway! So There!

My wife is taking a "girl friend" vacation in Florida. One of her pals owns a house which is large enough to accomodate more than 8 women and their "stuff." That should tell you something about the size of it. Here are some pictures.

Three Stories, 2 Master Bedrooms
who knows how many other rooms.

The Gulf of Mexico. I block from

house

                                                                    No sharks in here.

                                                                                     

The wife told me to quite pouting and whining about not being able to go. I think I'll go eat some dirt, that'll fix her. So there!

Ref Tagger

I just added "Ref Tagger" from Logos Bible Software to my blog. This is a test to see if it works like I hope it will, so here goes.

I love Colossians 1:17. I'm not sure I will ever understand the complete meaning of "by him all things consist." I just don't seem to be able to fully comprehend the idea that stars, bugs, and computers are kept in existence "by him and for him." (Col. 1:16). The idea is staggering to my simple mind.

Brit Hume on Jesus Christ

There is more Christian preaching in this 3 minute video than most churches preach in a year.

National Security and Swiss Cheese

Somewhere this morning I read an opinion column in which the author described our security against terrorist attack as Swiss Cheese. I think he had in mind a wheel of cheese, but I envisioned this:

In reality our security systems are more like chunks of cheese piled on each other with nothing connecting them and all with gaping holes in their systems. There is nothing secure about any of them and their ability to protect even their own is pitiful. How many policemen were killed recently in Washington State? How many CIA agents were killed inside one of their secure compounds in Afghanistan? How many people walked in on the President's State dinner, uninvited, shook hands with him and his wife, and got their pictures taken with him? Police can't protect themselves, the CIA invites suicide-bombers to lunch, and Our President is not protected from intruders in our White House. I'm expected to trust my life, and the lives of my family to these incompetents. I don't think so!

Recent events, the Christmas Undiebomber, or the bombing of a CIA fortress in Afghanistan, for examples, have shown that Homeland Security, Secret Service, U.S.Marshals, TSA, FBI, ATF, NSA, CIA, etc., are all constructed on the "swiss cheese" model. When we see them in action we find that all that has been accomplished is billions of dollars have been spent creating more holes in bureaucratic pieces of cheese.

When are we going to demand our elected officials actually secure our air travel and "homeland" and not just talk about it? We appear to be as stupid as Janet Napalitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, who said about the Christmas Plane, "the system worked."

I have no idea where her mind is, but it obviously is disconnected from reality. Unless she thinks there is nothing really all that bad in carrying explosives onto a passenger plane. That may in fact be the attitude in Washington since they have chosen to treat a terrorist as a common criminal and not as a foreign combatant in a war on terror. That decision is not just stupid, it's insane.

Personally I will feel much more secure when my "permission" to protect myself arrives in the form of a concealed pistol license. I'm kind of like the man on the Christmas Plane who said, "I rather be happy to be alive, than lucky to be alive."