 |
 |
|
 |
Welcome |
|
FeaturesChrist’s death, God’s wrath: the vital connection
Jul 30, 2009 Are you missing the point of Scripture passages? Jul 21, 2009 Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California May 14, 2009 Exploring The Last Battle’s Emeth element May 11, 2009 MacArthur on sex and the sacredness of the Song Apr 14, 2009 Heaven and Earth, part 1 — Fixing our eyes away from the lies Apr 13, 2009 Fighting on broader battlefields of Biblical spiritual warfare Apr 11, 2009 Keeping the Cross in focus this Good Friday Apr 10, 2009 An open letter to Jennie Chancey from the Devil Mar 12, 2009 Capitalism, socialism and critics’ Rush to judgment Mar 10, 2009 |
 |
Search |
|
Updates |
|
Recently read:
|
|
Recently read:
|
Christ’s death, God’s wrath: the vital connection |
|||
 |
by
Dr Ransom
at
05:53 PM ET
,
Thursday, Jul 30, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Life Applications | |||
(This is adapted from forum discussion posts written July 27 and July 29. These were mostly in response to a member who wrote that he disagreed on that Christ on the cross suffered God’s wrath as punishment for humans’ sin — an issue that transcends “Calvinism” vs. free-willieism.) Both Biblical Calvinists and Free-Willies believe a loving God will send people (and/or allow them to go) to Hell. We also fully agree that God allows suffering for his own good reasons. And both Calvinists and Free-Willies would (or should!) disagree with the sentiment below: I fail to see how any such sin sacrifice would pacify God. Does God delight in blood and vengeance? Is he not a merciful God? The two “sides” within Christendom both believe that God is merciful, yet also just. Yes, a sin sacrifice is what is required, made evident from the entirety of the Old Testament and Christ’s fulfillment of the Law. God is love, but if He ignored a rebel sinner spitting in His eye, He would not be holy; He would be evil. As my wife said over the weekend, some think as if God were like Tinker Bell from Peter Pan, only able to have one attribute or emotion at a time. This not only cheapens and humanizes God (and we are able to have more than one emotion at once!), but worse, bypasses Scriptures that clearly present Him as both love/mercy and holy/wrathful, not just all-love-all-the-time. I believe free-willies also exaggerate God’s love to an extent, but not so much as this. My free-willie friends may believe Christ died to set up a salvation “system,” rather than as a direct substitute for His people. But at least they believe that His sacrifice was for people’s sins and did satisfy God. This is the essence of Christianity, however you think the “mechanics” work. Scripture is so clear about this — try the whole book of Hebrews just for starters! Rather than talking about Predestination versus Free Will, I think the question needs to become: why did Jesus have to die? That is much more foundational to Christianity, and what our beliefs are based upon — God’s Word, or human-limited “logic”? To be frank, what one believes about it will separate true Christians from “Churchians.” |
|||
Are you missing the point of Scripture passages? |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
05:41 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Jul 21, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Life Applications | |||
(Edited from the originally written version, available here.) Here is something I’ve had on my mind for a while, based on a little series of broadcasts called “Discover the Word,” by RBC Ministries. In early May, I mini-blogged this to my website: Just now I’m finishing my catchup with the most recent “Discover the Word” broadcast, by RBC Ministries. They’re doing a fantastic series about misreading of Scripture, including Matthew 18: 19-20 ... offering the true context of this passage that I hadn’t seen before ... They continued the Biblical Context series for about a month, dealing with misunderstood, misinterpreted or misapplied passages of Scripture that people take out of context all the time and may not even know it. More and more I’ve learned that many passages I’ve had up in my head that I subconsciously thought said one thing actually say nothing of the sort. And in some cases, the out-of-context idea may be Biblical — just not what the verse is talking about there. Reading random letters For instance, take Matthew 18, actually verses 15-20. The whole passage is about what steps to follow if you’re offended by a fellow Christ-follower, right? But somehow or other, folks tend to see this passage (along with other Biblical texts) as sort of a child’s summer-camp letter, as Dr. Haddon Robinson so aptly phrased it: jumping from thought to thought to thought like a kid who says, “Hi Mom. It’s hot here at camp. I captured a frog. Yesterday I went swimming. Please send money for snacks. ‘Bye.” So instead of finding that all of what Jesus said in this passage is about reconciliation between believers, and in the Church, Christians think Jesus suddenly changes his mind and starts talking instead about prayer meetings, or “binding Satan,” or the power of faith to get stuff. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Pretty cool so far, right? Most readers would track right along with this if they began reading the chapter — or the book of Matthew altogether — from the beginning. Jesus started talking about personal reconciliation, which may or may not require church leaders to be intermediaries, and He hasn’t left that topic. So when why — I ask myself this too, with a silly grin on my face! — do we sometimes while reading verses like this suddenly assume Jesus had some kind of ADD and then got distracted by spiritual warfare and how God is always there at prayer meetings? That’s the way many Christians have traditionally understood the following verses, at least when they’re quoted by themselves like “sound bytes,” without context. |
|||
Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
05:25 PM ET
,
Thursday, May 14, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Life Applications | |||
(Adapted from responses, this one and this one, posted today to the Boundless Line blog.) Perhaps the Miss California furor is finally fizzling out, after spending most of the month in national headlines. Yesterday none other than multimillionaire Donald Trump defended infamous Miss U.S.A. pageant contestant Carrie Prejean, and even got in a great zinger against Barack Obama™. Trump noted that Prejean, after being asked a rather loaded question from a homosexual activist about marriage, had given the same answer as the president of the United States — that is, it should be between a man and woman. I grinned at the rhetoric, which was so shrewdly and perfectly balanced between justifying Prejean’s honest answer yet not directly agreeing with it. And I wished so much that I could also fully rally to this young woman’s cause. Yet it seems that during conservatives’ and Christians’ haste to defend Carrie Prejean — rightfully! — from the rabid liberal factions’ intolerance of her brave stance on real marriage, folks have been just sort-of skipping past the whole Immodesty issue. And this isn’t just incidental immodesty, this is making a living from being intentionally immodest. First, though, a disclaimer: All of this would ordinarily not apply if Ms. Prejean did these kind of things in the past, and has now turned away from them. For that, Christians — like the Christ they follow — should be lavish in their Grace and unilateral in their defense of one of their own. However, from what I have read, Ms. Prejean has responded to the release of provocative and even naked photos of her, and said “I’m not perfect” while also defending her showing her body in provocative ways in the present tense. “I am a Christian, and I am a model,” she said. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos.” (Summary: It’s my job.) Unfortunately that job is not something Christians can support Biblically. However, this does not mean we leave one of “our own” to suffer at the hands of secularists. What is needed here is neither full-fledged support nor repulsed rejection — but rather, careful discernment (especially on the part of men like me who’d like to write about the issue and be informed about it, though, ahem, without actually seeing the photos). |
|||
Exploring The Last Battle’s Emeth element |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
05:38 PM ET
,
Monday, May 11, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Media: "Narnia: AWAKE", Books, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Christian Novels | |||
Every once in a while I catch myself having oddball thoughts about either The Chronicles of Narnia or their author, C.S. Lewis. Such notions as these come not from any logical basis, but a rather reflexive attitude toward something like the Chronicles or Lewis’s other works, including Mere Christianity and The Great Divorce, that have proven to be so awesome yet so popular: How could anything be so awesome and yet so popular at the same time? There must be Something Wrong with it. Something about Narnia or Lewis’s nonfiction is actually un-Biblical and that’s why people like it so much. After all, Biblical things aren’t supposed to be popular.  I think that subconscious suspicion may be behind how many people react to a certain controversial portion of Lewis’s last Chronicle of Narnia, The Last Battle. This has often come up in the Narnia and Christianity section of the NarniaWeb forum (where I’m a moderator). People worry about it: Lewis’s portrayal of a young and “pagan” Calormene man who somehow finds his way into Aslan’s (the Chronicles’ Christ-figure’s) country and the heavenly New Narnia.Just this weekend, “Rilian” (NarniaWeb’s “podcasting prince”) and I recorded an hour-long session for the site in which we discussed what I’ve come to call The Emeth Element. It was an excellent interchange; I learned a lot, and I look forward to listeners’ responses! We began with reading excerpts from The Last Battle itself, in which the character Emeth, a young man who had earlier been showed as being fully devoted to the false god — though very real and evil entity — Tash. Calling the bluff of a deception coordinated by Narnia’s false prophet Shift, and the evil Calormene, Rishda Tarkaan, Emeth enters the mysterious Stable, slays an enemy, and finds himself not in a small dirty wooden hut, but a wondrous paradise that (somehow) Aslan has set up and which can be entered by passing through the Stable door. Later, Emeth tells other humans — the Seven Friends of Narnia — how he encountered Aslan. “Then I fell at [Aslan’s] feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, ‘Son, thou art welcome.’ But I said, ‘Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.’ He answered, ‘Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?’ I said, ‘Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.’ But I said also (for the truth constrained me), ‘Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.’ ‘Beloved,’ said the Glorious One, ‘unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.’ |
|||
MacArthur on sex and the sacredness of the Song |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:20 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Cross Firings, Life Applications | |||
From John MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Fellowship site today (hat tip: Tim Challies), the pastor/author is ready to address both the Song of Solomon and those evangelical leader who, he says with the only “explicit” term used in his introduction, “rape” its beauty. Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service. If he can shock parishioners with crude words and sophomoric humor, so much the better. I am grateful to Pastor MacArthur for addressing this issue and I look forward to reading more from him. And I am also grateful that he is not falling into the tempting trap of presenting Big Bad Examples of the sin so we can all see how bad it is, which kind of defeats the whole point. In recent years, it seems this whole outdo-in-lewd-and-crude approach has been based on immaturity and a rather gleeful attitude of libertarian antinomianism as well. (I am not as familiar with Mark Driscoll, yet unlike some others at least for him the attitude is contrary to his professed strong Reformed stance.) Why can Christ-followers not adopt a more Puritan (not less!) attitude toward intimate relations in marriage — with a balance of guarding their sacredness yet also not being ashamed? Why must church leaders jolt from one extreme to the other? Men such as MacArthur, John Piper and CJ Mahaney have done well addressing the subject of sex with the appropriate blend of restraint and yet clarity. Intimacy in marriage is a beautiful thing, but now too many churches are falling all over themselves to talk about it as if they’ve been muzzled for far too long and by golly now is the time to Show All the World That We Are Just as Crazy About Sex, too. “Hee hee hee, look what Iiiii’m doinnnng, I’m talking about se-exxx! Oh, I am such a ‘bad boy,’ I am quite the naughty evangelical, aren’t I?” Come on. Big deal. It won’t take long before the gimmick of this has worn off and all those “naughty evangelicals” will look around and see that it’s not so supposedly naughty anymore because everybody is doing it. Rumors of all these imaginary-enemy Puritan Legalists glaring in the general directions of married couples’ bedrooms have been greatly exaggerated. Furthermore, what is the deal with pretending like it’s all naughty in order to enjoy it? That’s just strange and twisted — and perhaps it demonstrates that they haven’t gotten rid of their hangups nearly as much as they say. While mindful of Christ and propriety that honors Him and His institution of marriage, can we not be simply “too cool” to fall for all this dumb cackling about it? From what I have read so far, the Puritans did not frown upon pleasure, they safeguarded it from this kind of insipidity. So if you’re making a big pretense about rebelling against “Puritanical” attitudes, sorry, you’ve got the wrong straw man. Such haw-haw nudge-nudge crude locker-room-speak about the subject is absolutely against the restrained-yet-passionate nature of Song of Solomon, and also transparently eye-rollingly absurd to those with a more Biblical balance. But worse, as Phil Johnson pointed out in his excellent March 6 sermon, it dishonors Christ, ignores the clear instructions of Titus 2 to forbid profane talk and crude joking, and fails to uphold the wonderful sacredness of intimacy in marriage. |
|||
Heaven and Earth, part 1 — Fixing our eyes away from the lies |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:37 PM ET
,
Monday, Apr 13, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Heaven | |||
Easter / Resurrection Sunday has come and gone, leaving Christ-followers around the world even more grateful for Christ’s resurrection and the hope of our own — but this weekend I realized even more that some ideas about how God will rise His people again to live everlasting need to be put to death and never brought back to life. And then we ought also to dance with joy on the graves of such myths! My thoughts came from yesterday, when I was told that a family I knew was saying goodbye to visiting relatives. Some voiced wishes that they could have more time to talk and visit. Well, at least we’ll have time in Heaven, one family member said. But then another responded with something like, Oh well, we may not remember, you know. Hearing about this expression of such a belief made me feel almost as grieved and disappointed as those who hold such ideas would feel, if they truly allowed themselves to consider. What a hopeless notion — Heaven, a world of perpetual “spiritoid” Alzheimer’s patients? Some months ago, as part of an online discussion about the true nature of Heaven — the New Heavens and New Earth that God promises to create — a friend of mine said (slightly edited): I was watching a movie the other night, with my dad, and the main character was sitting in a lovely grove of tree, and it looked so beautiful, and I looked to my dad and asked him, “Dad, do you think they’ll be places like that in heaven?”  Why is this thought of as wrong, or at least silly? Why do so many Christians believe such things about Heaven, or their resurrection bodies? Where are such notions found in Scripture? How could such a strange environment, in which it is assumed God’s people will be even less knowledgeable than they are now, be properly classified as Heaven? And how could such an existence be better without such simple gifts from God as His creation of nature?Unlike other false views contrary to Scripture, myths about Heaven are far more harmful both to how we view our own resurrection and how we view God’s glory and Christ’s resurrection. Is God truly glorified by rescuing His bride from a universe beyond repair, and turning His people into “spiritoids” floating in some kind of ethereal world? Does Scripture really tell us this? And unlike how many Christians handle some false views, I approach this with far more earnestness and heartfelt passion to show what Scripture says so clearly and in contrast. This isn’t to be right, or even to Stand on the Word just to look cool. And this is not about proving some peripheral point or “accessory” belief, either, such as end-times events or even political positions. This is vital — so vital to our hope for God’s after-world, and for our rejoicing in how He will make all things new! |
|||
Fighting on broader battlefields of Biblical spiritual warfare |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
04:08 PM ET
,
Saturday, Apr 11, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Life Applications | |||
(Originally posted today for the NarniaWeb forum’s continuing “Christianity, Religion and Philosophy” discussion; edited slightly for this site)  Well, this should be the first of a very long post — or perhaps I will actually tackle one theme at a time, so as to preserve both my own labor and others’ labor in reading through. I do hope folks will read, especially [NarniaWeb member] Fencer for Jesus, to whom this is mostly addressed. I don’t think I’ve ever done a point-by-point rebuttal to you before, Fencer. But this won’t really be a rebuttal anyway. It’s more like a clarification. You see, while reading through your post of a couple days ago, I think I’ve figured out why you’ve been bothered about others being bothered about giving demons undue attention. I see what you and a few others have been saying wisewoman. But there is a great danger to that, even if you aren’t seeing it that way or intending it. Yes, the Great War has been won. But even you must know that it is not over yet. You have given me the impression (and I hope I am wrong on this) that we only need to worry about spiritual warfare when battle come. This seems to be because you are oversimplifying the battle that indeed, Scripture says we will fight lifelong. Yes, Satan and his powers were defeated and disarmed on the Cross. [Christ] disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. Colossians 2:15 (ESV) But this is one of those “already and not yet” paradoxes of Biblical truth. Absolutely we are commanded to oppose Satan and his evil spiritual forces. That’s because we are part of the victory that has already been won, just as the truth that Christians are declared righteous, but we’re still not perfect yet in this life. But, when I say it seems you are oversimplifying the spiritual battle, I am referring to an either/or equation I think you may have — incidentally — in your mind: Spiritual warfare = directly opposing and/or casting out demons. Whereas the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, gives a much more broad emphasis in spiritual warfare: Spiritual warfare =
|
|||
Keeping the Cross in focus this Good Friday |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:00 AM ET
,
Friday, Apr 10, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology | |||
Christianity moves on — not only the cause of Christ but the topic including the name, in the NarniaWeb forum. There the discussion had recently shifted to demons and spiritual warfare, which is highly interesting especially when people begin posting about their Paranormal Experiences. I’m particularly fond of the demonoid-shape seen under the street light. Ugh. But it’s not Halloween, it’s Good Friday, and recently others — myself included — showed inclinations of moving on to other topics. That began after one relative newcomer to the forum, named “Light in the Dark,” recently said this: How could a Demon just work its’ [sic] way into you, without your permission, if God, a much more powerful Being, can’t? Apparently this is a very reasonable and understandable point, given the default view of many evangelicals that God does not reach out to sinners until sinners first reach out to God. In response, The Black Glove (who has posted here as Roccondil) very briefly asked: What do you mean “can’t”? Later, TBG posted a summary of the “Five Points of Calvinism,” also known as the Doctrines of Grace. It’s here that I would like to pick up, followed by my own remarks, edited from a lengthy post yesterday, about the centrality of the Gospel and seeking the Bible’s big picture of Christ and Him crucified — above all other issues that may relate to the Gospel but are not as vital. |
|||
An open letter to Jennie Chancey from the Devil |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
01:01 PM ET
,
Thursday, Mar 12, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Cross Firings, Legalism | |||
(Note: for best results, read in the voice of Heath Ledger’s The Joker, from The Dark Knight.) TO: Jennie Chancey, “Ladies Against Feminism” web-site FROM: The Devil SUBJ.: “Don’t Believe Everything You Read…”, posted March 4 Hi. Bilious greetings. From roaming to and fro on the Earth, and going back and forth in it, I have come across your recent article about avoiding internet “gossip.” In the article, you quote from a Crosswalk website column “about the proliferation of ‘attack’ sites on the Internet that target individual Christians and ministries.” The columnist says that the internet is leading to way too much misinformation about other Christians’ beliefs. These “so-called ‘Christians’” are turning cult-like, a “Cult of Online Discernment Ministries,” he says. And real Christians need to be careful about what they read. So after that, you offer your own personal thoughts. After all, as you said, you have yourself “been on the receiving end of some of the most laughable misinformation campaigns.” People out there — they haven’t been very nice to you, have they? They’ve been disagreeing with your views. Oh yes, you’ll find many disagreeing views on the internet. So what’s your response? “Publicly airing disagreements online or off is not only unbiblical, it is just plain crass and rude,” you wrote. “Far better to pursue private communication and reconciliation, which is the true way to purify and unify the Church.” Then you go on to suggest people quit trolling around the internet to find the latest gossip. I’m guessing that means gossip about you and the other ladies who oppose feminism and support “patriarchy,” with women knowing their proper place according to the un-Holy Bible. And you write about that on the “Ladies Against Feminism” site. On that site, women try to encourage other women to be “keepers at home” and obedient to their husbands. I know you want husbands to lead your families, so much so that a daughter is considered her father’s “help-meet” until he gives her away. Your writers also discourage daughters from leaving home to attend college. You encourage them to be part of their father’s goals for not only himself, but the family. And you uphold the ideas of the vile “Vision Forum” organization (oh, I hate to name it here) that wants to spread the notion of true Christian families bringing forth God’s kingdom on Earth with the authority roles of fathers and men. Anything can be a cultMrs. Chancey, you know I don’t like you very much. And I don’t like very much the “Vision Forum” organization and all its strong male leaders who want to return to that un-Holy Bible’s direct prescription for patriarchal families. It’s for that reason that all these online ministries have been set against you. They don’t want you to succeed. I don’t, either. I can’t stand that father-rule idea. It’s been causing more trouble for my army of evil than the creationists, the Calvinists, Dave Hunt, Jack Chick, the Navigators, and the late Jerry Falwell combined. So I’m writing today to tell you — stop repeating this. It’s damaging the cause of Hell, and really, really sticking in my personal craw. We can’t advance the kingdom of darkness in this world with Christians calling out and attacking other Christians for being cultic, because they are also calling out and attacking other Christians for being cultic. It just won’t do. Understand? Whenever people begin to realize that really anything, anywhere, can be called a “cult” — well, that is when the legions of Hell and I really begin to lose ground. Whether a cult has un-Biblical beliefs, a centralized leadership, its own literature, jargon, and pious followers, doesn’t matter. In actuality, anything can be called a “cult.” And I do not want more of my worst enemies like you to figure that out. That is why I am so angry with you, Mrs. Chancey, so angry that I just grind my hooves together in rage. |
|||
Capitalism, socialism and critics’ Rush to judgment |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
01:07 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Mar 10, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology | |||
Sometimes it seems most of my columns here originally come from alternate sources — such as NarniaWeb or the Boundless blog. What often happens is that I'll start a short comment on either site, and it turns into a column that I end up writing with FaithFusion in mind. In this case, the focus is Rush Limbaugh, about whom Boundless writer Motte Brown posted yesterday. He gave a summary of Liberals’ efforts to take out Limbaugh and that garnered, predictably, lots of support from readers along with even more predictable grumblings from those who consider Limbaugh and firmer conservative advocacy the bane of the Republican party and polite political discourse. The silliest of responses came from commentator BDB, who often has some great things to say but in this case is just ill-informed about right-wing rhetoric and recent elections: Rush and Hannity are so great for Republicans! Just look at how well the 2008 elections went! I had to respond to this. BDB, the only way your point has any validity is if Republicans in 2008, especially John McCain, had actually been implementing philosophy-based political conservativism the way Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity advocate it. You cannot logically or seriously argue that national Republicans took those pundits' advice. None other than Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, who seems to enjoy American politics just as much as defending Biblical creation (sometimes resulting in similar “that’s so mean” objections), also noted: BDB (#2), yeah, look how great the GOP did by NOT listening to Rush and Hannity, and instead impersonating the big-spending Dems. Being elected largely on “fiscal responsibily” then spending big is hardly inspiring—it's not quite such a big vote-winner to campaign, “yes, we love spending, but we're a lesser evil than the Dems”, even though it's right. The following is edited from my recent comment in response to the why-did-Republicans-lose question, along with other Rush-related myth-conceptions and the Biblical basis of capitalism. |
|||
Attacking apologetics activists: uncouth, unloving, sometimes unwise |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
03:50 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Feb 24, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Science, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Evangelism, Life Applications | |||
How come some Christians, supposedly enlightened and set free from legalistic constructs, react more strongly to strong words from someone like Dr. Jonathan Sarfati or even Ann Coulter than they would do to those who enjoy strong language or drinks? How come many Christians want to do better at very good things such as Showing Grace, Caring for the Poor, Being Authentic, Loving Liberals and Avoiding Legalism — but as soon as other Christ-followers come along with a different or harsher (even arguably un-Biblical) zeal or rhetorical style, they’re ready to give up and not show the same grace and caring to them? I want to do better at tolerating my homosexual friends than Christians have in the past. I’m more enlightened, tolerant and Christlike. But you — ? Oh no, you’re a Legalist or a Mean Christian. I don’t want to be around you; you make us look bad, so get out of my face. Methinks I see inconsistency.  These questions have arisen after my On spiritual sophistry, sarcasm and Dr. Sarfati column, slightly altered to post as a comment, brought responses and agreements on the Boundless blog — some incidental, some direct. Another comment of mine is now up over there, some of which I’ll adapt for the below material.But my response here is not to those who questioned Dr. Sarfati’s seeming contention that because Jesus was sarcastic and even “mean” sometimes, then we’re allowed to be that way in all interactions with evolutionists or compromising Christians. I was among them myself. Rather, I’m directly rebutting folks such as Nathan Zamprogno, who wrote a reply to me earlier today. He clearly spent a lot time on it, and I want to respond more directly and carefully. I read all of what Nathan wrote. But I suspect he didn’t quite read all of what I wrote. While he and I seem to agree on some of my points, he seemed to assume a false either/or dichotomy: that my questioning Sarfati’s style would mean I would also detest all them mean young-earth creationists. But actually, with this issue, I’m a both/and kind of man. My reasons are threefold. By deciding that the often-harsher rhetoric of apologist activists such as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is in effect intolerable, worse than putting up with secular sins, Christians are: 1. Sucking up to secularists,
2. Alienating our apologist brothers, and 3. Risking rejection of real truth. |
|||
On spiritual sophistry, sarcasm, and Dr. Sarfati |
|||||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:01 PM ET
,
Monday, Feb 23, 2009
|
Permalink | |||
| Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Cross Firings, Life Applications | |||||
More controversy is brewing on the Boundless webzine, the site for young adults that covers all manner of discipleship, worldview and lifestyle issues. Debate over there is nothing new. What is new is that it involves a true apologetics hero whose arguments, though sparkling with light and truth, also carry static shock that’s even rubbing fellow Christ-followers the wrong way.
More recently, Boundless has been publishing columns by him and other CMI staff. And Sarfati has also been getting into several blog discussions — and riling reactionary responses. That’s not surprising. Skepticism will always assail someone who believes, and much more so proclaims, such ideas as: God created the world 6,000 years ago; science has limitations in proving origins beliefs and is never “objective”; the global flood of Genesis, not millions of years, is responsible for almost all fossils; evidence fits better with creationist presuppositions. But Sarfati likes to get into politics, too, and as one friend of mine once said, he seems to know American politics and the Constitution better than most Americans. His style and criticisms are very reminiscent of Ann Coulter, another favorite conservative writer of mine (I’ll admit it). In a recent comment, Sarfati generalized Leftists as “elitists who regard themselves as above the rules they foist on others,” and employed the use of amusing names for Liberals such as “Debtocrats” or “celebutards.” Other Boundless commentators blasted him back — some of them are left-leaning professing Christians — yet a few others, such as myself here, agreed with the content, yet questioned Sarfati’s style: Just a few changes [. . .] to remove the name-calling and over-generalizing, would go a long way toward making the truth of the arguments even more poignant. Dr. Sarfati, I would agree with you that in some situations, even Coulter-esque invective can be entertaining. But coming from a Christ-follower, the juvenile verbiage seems unnecessary. And I would even more strongly suggest that it is also un-Christlike. Sir, I greatly respect your work for the apologetics and Scripture defense cause, but is [it] a more-powerful argument, and furthermore Scriptural, to “speak the truth in love”? To that, and other objections, Sarfati noted, How can following Christ's own challenge-riposte be “un-Christlike”? Have these critics actually even read what Christ said? There is nothing in the Bible demanding that we should be like [C]hrist only when He was gentle, but not when He used riposte. It seems Sarfati’s response bears a more-direct and comprehensive answer. Dare I go up against one of my apologetics heroes and suggest he’s wrong? No, I dare not. Rather, I prefer coming alongside him as a Christian brother, and admirer, and hope only to suggest graciously a more balanced approach to dealing with folks, and especially professing Christians. |
|||||
Substitute mediators and ‘CINOs’: a response to one Catholic |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
02:28 PM ET
,
Monday, Feb 02, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Cross Firings | |||
“Medieval Catholicism” was the topic of one column written by my brother on his own blog, offering many creative and comical observations of a cathedral he toured while in Washington, DC, for the pro-life march. Among more-substantive critiques of Catholic over-veneration of tradition and saints and such, he offered a recurring and hilarious “Monty Python” reference (the first one to find them and mention them wins a prize, namely, in-comment bragging rights). And he made a comparison I'd never seen made before. There were splendid and massive frescoes, paintings, displays, statutes and bas-relief carvings. There was a massive pipe organ towards the back. There were numerous vestibules off of the main chamber to give homage to the various and sundry saints and “Our Ladies” of the Catholic history. I nearly broke out into peals of laughter (I managed to channel it into muted chortling) because of the number of different saints and titles that were displayed, reminding me of the silly role-playing games with dozens of characters and +1 abilities. But then came a critical comment from a professing Catholic, who said he had found Dave's column on the Google Blog Search and just happened to stop by to attempt addressing his arguments. I don't think the critical comment-writer did too well. And though Dave will very likely write his own rebuttal, I hoped to do the same in the meantime. Here it is, though with some additions for clarity. Ah yes. I figured you would be having the zealous Catholic apologists come after you over this one, Dave. ;-)
I note, Timothy, that you've bypassed Dave's tongue-in-cheek comparisons of Catholicism's “veneration of the saints” to role-playing game players with various fantastic abilities. Surely you can laugh along with this even a little, seeing how this can look to non-Catholics while also knowing that in Catholicism (as in Protestantism) even good things like respecting other saints can be overdone, even to superstitious extremes as you yourself pointed out? As you have attempted with Dave, I now do with you, in offering a point-by-point rebuttal. As you have also claimed, I hope to adhere to Scripture, not just church traditions. However, I hope to avoid overcorrecting and dismissing all traditions entirely. [Dave had written about one chanter in the march, “He ended his 'hail Mary' the exact same way each time...'blessed are you and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.' ”] First, regarding the veneration of Mary, you somewhat subtly-sarcastically responded, That would be Luke 1:42. Catholics are fond of memorizing and reciting scripture. Hmm, the implication here is that Dave, or other non-Catholic Christ-followers, is not. Also, I didn’t read Dave objecting to a quote from the famous Magnificat. It was the “Hail Mary” part that he, other non-Catholic Christ-followers, and myself, see as at best questionable, at worst, anti-Biblical. The arguments for and against the veneration of Mary are well-known and documented. If you were truly interested in the Protestant side, I have no doubt you would have already seen those. Suffice it to say, yes, informed Protestants take the “one mediator” stuff to mean that only Jesus can intercede on our behalf before the Father, not Mary, and not other saints (more on this later, regarding your bait-and-switch about 1 Timothy 2:5). Praying to Mary, or in the name of Mary or another saint, is thus rendered illogical at best, and “over-veneration” at worst. These people are heroes of the faith, yet not omniscient like God. How can we know they will hear us anyway? (In all fairness, Christians who declare that they “bind Satan” or some such nonsense seem to ignore the fact that the Devil is not omniscient, either. How would they know the devil even heard?) “It seems that most of the March is, in fact, comprised of Catholics.” Yes, the Catholic Church’s position on the evil of abortion is well-known, and commendable. I didn’t see any criticism of this fact. It was just a statement of fact, that most of the March seems to be comprised of Catholics. In your apparently hasty defense, did you miss the part in which Dave described his own involvement with the pro-life march? “[H]alf of Catholics are registered Democrat, and voted for Barack Obama in numbers greater than for McCain.” Fully agreed, and I will remark that it was not only “cultural Catholics,” but also “cultural Protestants” (Christians In Name Only, CINOs), or naïve Christians, or ill-informed Christians, who voted for a leader who is so clearly opposed to Judeo-Christian social and government morality. |
|||
On daughters, fathers and family functions |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:04 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Life Applications | |||
(Once again I present a recent response/essay I wrote for the NarniaWeb forum “Mush Series,” coming back after a lull that was interrupted by a member’s questions about a Christian family. If “patriocentric” concepts of fathers and daughters are not Biblical, she asked, then what might be the right ways for fathers and daughters to interact according to Scripture?)  Now I hope to respond to your questions, Daughter. First, though, I need to put in a few disclaimers. I’m not a father (yet) or a real doctor. I only play one on the internet. However, I can point back to my own experiences growing up and how my family is still raising my brothers and especially sisters, as positive examples. That’s how I want to do it — especially when it comes to father/daughter interactions. How about I try to respond to your questions point by point? And thanks for the chance to do so. Meanwhile, though, I’d love to hear others’ views on this as well. Scripture: silent beyond ‘children, obey your parents’I’d like to know what you think a biblical family should look like? What do you think the father/daughter relationship in particular should look like? [. . .] And what is the Biblical background/back-up for your belief? As noted before, Scripture is completely silent about whether a daughter should take the role of “helpmeet” to her father, before she gets married and leaves home. It’s equally silent about something we might think it would include if it were this vital to the Christian family lifestyle — the idea that a young woman in particular must stay home until she’s married and not pursue education or even a job outside the home or something. So if we know what Scripture either doesn’t mention at all, or else implicitly rebuts when it teaches us about Grace-enabled freedom and balanced living, the question is: so what do fathers and daughters do in their relationships? But I would ask another question before that: is there really anything in the Bible that teaches us anything about how “the father/daughter relationship in particular should look like”? All I see in there are reminders about parents and children. And though I’m not just talking about the New Testament (search in vain in the Old for father/daughter behavior role rules), this is especially revealed in Ephesians 6. After one of my all time favorite passages, Ephesians 5: 22-33, about husband/wife roles and Christ and His Church, we get this from the Apostle Paul: Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ”Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), ”that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Ephesians 6: 1-4 (ESV) With our specific discussion in mind, what’s very noteworthy about this passage is what is not there, almost as much as what is there. “Children” is a general term including both sons and daughters. They are told to obey their parents, for the simple reason that “this is right.” No difference is made between sons and daughters, or fathers and mothers. It covers all parties. It doesn’t group daughters separately from sons, or mothers separately from husbands. “Children, obey your parents.” |
|||
