To my Calvinist brethren Charles & Timothy,

My delay in responding to the comments each of you has posted (here) and (here) is regrettable.  I apologize for not having made the time to address your thoughtful arguments in a timelier manner.  In addition, I should have done better in helping readers identify who made particular arguments and referenced specific scriptures.  I didn’t – and frankly, that’s laziness on my part.  No offense intended.

Given the length of our posts, it seemed best to respond to specific scriptural references used in your arguments.  If nothing else, I’m sure we’ll all agree that our respective arguments are pointless if we can’t back them up with scripture.  However, I didn’t respond to everything that was tossed my way.  Except for those passages referring to God’s word (which again, Timothy, I regret that I am still struggling to understand), I found our greater disagreements contained herein.  Please feel free to respond on anything here or reiterate some point that I have not addressed in this post.  I welcome your input and appreciate the time and effort you’ve both expended in responding to my musings.

Daily Bible Study Acts 9 Daily Bible Study Acts 9 Daily Bible Study Acts 9 Bible

Daily Truth Bible Study  Acts 9:22-43   Let us continue to follow what God is doing in the Church during its formation. How does this compare with what is happening in the “church” today?

Verse 22 tells us that Saul/Paul confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus proving that Jesus is the Christ. Now we know that it was not the lesser of the Jews he was confounding because, in every other situation we have seen, the leadership of the Jews is always out in front of the confrontation. It was true in the very beginning. The Jews who were leading the battle against Jesus were the leadership and that continued. So do not think that Saul/Paul was sneaking around and talking to the lowest level of Jew only. He was confounding the leadership and proving that Jesus was indeed who He had said He was.

How did Saul/Paul do this? I would say that he did it the same way he continued to do it throughout his ministry. He taught that Jesus is the Son of God who died, rose, and ascended to be with the Father. He taught that there is salvation in no other name except Jesus. This is the same message Paul taught throughout his ministry. The power of God was also involved without question. God’s power was at work to accomplish His purpose. Saul/Paul was only as able as God made him to be.

Now, I would like to combat the thought popular today that “since modern people do not want to hear about doctrine, we need to be relevant to them and meet them where they live”. This type of thinking is bankrupt. It implies that God and His word is not relevant unless man gives it the right to be. This is an abomination! God is Holy, Holy, Holy. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-encompassing. He determines what is relevant.

The “relevance to the world” crowd are working from the belief that man is sovereign in determining whether or not he will accept God. They may not admit it but it is true. Why else would a person think it necessary to the relevant to a group in order to tell the group what it needs to hear? They are trying to get the group’s approval or buy-in.

We have already covered the fact that God is sovereign and determines those who will be saved and is justified in doing so. God predetermines and calls those who will be saved unto Himself. This is why God is always relevant. People need to hear the truth so the elect will come to God in repentance (which is a sign they are the elect). 

Saul/Paul could talk the talk and reason with the educated. He was a well-educated pharisee before his conversion. If he had wanted, he could have argued Jewish beliefs all day long. As an educated man, he could have also argued Roman politics and world events. He did not do this however. He preached Christ alone as the savior of the world.

Next, look at verse 23. After many days, the Jews plotted to kill him. Here we go again. Not much has changed. The Jews realized they were in trouble of loosing their hold over the people. Saul/Paul’s message threatened to undo their religious system. Their hardened hearts were not capable of repenting (apparently) and thus they planned to kill the messenger so as to remove the problem.

Wow, what a religion! They could not win the argument with facts and they did not apparently have a great deal of faith in their religion so they plotted to kill Saul/Paul to quiet him.

What does this tell you about Saul/Paul and his message. There was real power there. If not, would the Jews desire to kill? Maybe. Saul/Paul’s message was considered blasphemous to them. However, watch how they planned to kill him. They were not planning to walk up to him and kill him publicly. They waited at the gates to catch him. This may suggest the Jews were not acting with the popular opinion of the population of the area.

Regardless of the exact reason for their plans, Saul/Paul was not to be stopped. God made a way for his escape. Saul/Paul was a force to be feared by the Jews. He carried the message of redemption to his part of the world.  

Baptist Bible Brian McLaren Christianity Church Emerging Church Emergent Church Conservative Creation Discernment Doug Pagitt Evolution Faith Fundamentalist God Gospel Intelligent Design James McDonald Jesus Christ John MacArthur Joel Osteen John Piper Liberal Logic Relevance Missions New Age New Testament Old Testament Paul Washer Politics Post-modern Purpose Driven Religion Rick Warren Rob Bell Scripture Spiritual Theology Truth Inspirational Intellectual Calvinist Orthodox Bible Study Bible Study Theology Doctrine Daily Truth Calvinist Calvinist Calvinist Baptist Bible Brian McLaren Christianity Church Emerging Church Emergent Church Conservative Creation Discernment Doug Pagitt Evolution Faith Fundamentalist God Gospel Intelligent Design James McDonald Jesus Christ John MacArthur Joel Osteen John Piper Liberal Logic Relevance Missions New Age New Testament Old Testament Paul Washer Politics Post-modern Purpose Driven Religion Rick Warren Rob Bell Scripture Spiritual Theology Truth Inspirational Intellectual Calvinist Orthodox Baptist Bible Brian McLaren Christianity Church Emerging Church Emergent Church Conservative Creation Discernment Doug Pagitt Faith Fundamentalist God Gospel Intelligent Design James McDonald Jesus Christ John MacArthur Joel Osteen John Piper Liberal Logic Relevance Missions New Age New Testament Old Testament Paul Washer Politics Post-modern Purpose Driven Religion Rick Warren Rob Bell Scripture Spiritual Theology Truth Inspirational Intellectual Calvinist Orthodox Bible Study Bible Study Bible Study Christian Christianity Religion Religion Religion Reigion Grace Grace Grace Hope Hope Hope Change Change Change  Doctrine Doctrine Bible Bible Bible Relevant Relevant Relevance Post-Modern Church Truth Truth Truth Truth Truth Emergent Church Emerging Church Emergent Church Emerging Church Emerging Church Discernment Discernment Discernment Discernment Discernment Discernment Soteriology Apologetics Hermeneutics Soteriology Apologetics Hermeneutics Soteriology Apologetics Hermeneutics Peace Mercy Grace Peace Mercy Grace Apologetics, Hermeneutics, Soteriology, Mercy, Grace, Peace, Hope, Change, Bible Study Perry Noble Perry Noble Perry Noble Perry Noble Perry Noble Perry Noble Perry Noble Mark Driscoll Mark Driscoll Mark Driscoll Mark Driscoll Mark Driscoll Mark Driscoll Perry Noble

Andrew Fuller on those who object, “..the real objection against us respects us not as strict nor as open communionists, but as Baptists. In other words, that the only open communion that would give satisfaction must include an acknowledgment of the validity of paedobaptism, which, for any Baptist to make, would be ceasing to be a Baptist.

The Philadelphia Baptist Association, “In answer to a query from one of our churches: What measure ought to be taken with a sister church who holds and actually admits unbaptized persons to the Lord’s supper? we observe, That such a church may and ought, in the first instance, to be written to by a sister church, exhorting them to desist from such a practice, and to keep the ordinances as they were delivered to them in the word of God.”

John Dagg wrote,

“When a church receives an unbaptized person, something more is done than merely to tolerate his error. There are two parties concerned. The acts of entering the church and partaking of its communion are his, and for them he is responsible. The church also acts when it admits him to membership, and authorizes his participation of the communion. The church, as an organized body, with power to receive and exclude members according to rules which Christ has laid down, is responsible for the exercise of this power. Each individual disciple of Christ is bound, for himself, to obey perfectly the will of his Master. Whatever tolerance he may exercise towards the errors of others, he should tolerate none in himself. Though he may see but a single fault in his brother, he ought, while imitating all that brother’s excellencies, carefully to avoid this fault. He may not neglect the tithing of mint, though he should find an example of such neglect accompanied with a perfect obedience of every moral precept.”

“The members of a church, who understand the law of Christ, are bound to observe it strictly, whatever may be the ignorance and errors of others. For them to admit unbaptized persons to membership, is to subvert a known law of Christ. Though there be unbaptized persons surpassing in every spiritual excellence, and though the candidate for admission excel them all, yet the single question for the church is, shall its order be established according to the will of God, or shall it not.”

“We are aware that the practice of strict communion is considered offensive by a large part of the Christian community. We lament this fact; and if the arguments which have been adduced in defence of our practice, have failed to produce a conviction of its propriety, we would still crave from our brethren the forbearance and toleration for which they plead in behalf of the weak in faith. We conscientiously believe that we are doing the Lord’s will; and we would gladly invite every child of God to unite in our simple ceremonial observance, if we had the divine approbation. But we believe that the purpose for which the observance was instituted, and the divine will by which it ought to be regulated, require the restrictions under which we act.”

“When Pedobaptists complain of our strict communion, we would remind them that they hold the principle in common with us, and practice on it in their own way. If they have aught to object, let it be at that in which we differ from them, and not at that in which we agree. The contrary course is not likely to produce unity of opinion, or to promote that harmony of Christian feeling which ought to subsist among the followers of our Lord. When Baptists object to strict communion, we would propose the inquiry, Whether they do not attach undue importance to the eucharist, in comparison with baptism. Mr. Hall calls the eucharist a principal spiritual function. In this view of it, he complains that the privilege of partaking in it should be denied to any. Is it more spiritual than baptism? If not, why should baptism be trodden under foot, to open the way of access to the eucharist? When both ceremonies were supposed to possess a saving efficacy, the proper order of their observance was still maintained; much more should it be maintained, if both are mere ceremonies. If baptism were a mere ceremony, and the eucharist a principal spiritual function, the arguments for open communion would have a force which they do not now possess: but our brethren will not defend this position.”

“And the open communion Baptist, who, in his own case, preserves the divine succession of first discipleship, and then baptism, when he joins or presides over a mixed communion church, destroys what he has thus built up, and makes himself a transgressor … It is the strict Baptist alone that follows the precepts of the Lord of the house … .” J. C. Philpot

Sacred boundary stone between Church lands

From Headquarters of the Church of Scotland at 121 George Street in Edinburgh, the state religion of the country controls most of the land previously gifted by generous lairds and landowners to the Church, a practice dating from the twelfth century. In recent years church buildings themselves have gone under the hammer, turning from sacred places of worship to private homes with the arbitrary wave of 121’s magisterial wand.

Aberdeenshire is traditionally famed for its Pictish symbol stones, thought to date from at least the 5th century, the earliest found in profusion on fertile farmland of busy agricultural communities. These were often saved from destruction by gunpowder or the plough by deep-seated superstition.

In an oral culture handed down from ancestral times, it didn’t do to harm the stones.

They were, after all, one of few remnants of country (‘pagan’ from Latin paganus, countryman) tradition which predated Christianity; a tradition of which the ancestors spoke. You could ’set your clock by the stones’.

Unlike its neighbour to the south, Northeast Scotland has a strong oral tradition and holds with a belief in respect for one’s forebears, more common in other early matrilineal cultures like the Native American, Maya and Zulu. In that sense, Pictish culture is strong here, regardless of modern influences; remarkable in the last thirty years in particular, with the absorption of Oil Culture.

Part of the Pictish soul, perhaps, is its ability by a people accustomed to infiltration, conquered status and absorption, to hold firm to the land, the original nurturing Mother, and get on with the business of living.

Matrilineal Picts were first absorbed in 843 by patriachal Scots, but Pictish Law held true and became adopted as the legal system of the conquerors. Scots Law to this day is guided by essential elements of its Pictish origins.

Pictish family systems are often likened to the Clan system of the West, but in a Pictish Northeast mindset, it is once again a different concept. Whereas within the Pictish family the female concepts of gratitude, hospitality, respect and negotiation are fostered, as we children claim an unspoken bond with country and ancestors, the Scots clan system is ruled by a Clan Chieftain, usually (but not always) male.

As with assimilation of Pictish Law, the countryman allowed nomenclature, yet persisted in the Old Way of doing things.

Scots in turn were absorbed by the English and, while it may be averred that west-coast or Central Belt Scots ‘hate’ their conquerors, the northeast Pict has no such feeling; it is irrelevant.

A Pictish mindset allows an appearance of conformity, while keeping his/her own counsel.

Pictish stone: Double disc and Z-rod

Northeast parishes of Aberdeenshire, Banffshire and Moray followed the instruction of the Reformed Church to the letter – while at the same time managing to guard handed-down veneration of ancestral sacred places.

Because of this apparent anomaly, around 600 Neolithic recumbent stone circles survive in the northeast triangle, and, though separated by 3500 years, roughly 100 Pictish symbol stones have been preserved for posterity.

Pictish stones are divided into Class I, incised (approximately AD500 onwards); Class II, relief-carved cross-slabs (8thC – 9thC); Class III relief with horsemen, kings, hierarchical designs (9thC -10thC); and Class IV, (8thC transitional) cross-stones with no other ornamentation (illus. top). The earliest Class I and Class II stones are invariably found in association with pre-Christian sacred sites.

Bourtie: on the same site for 800 years

Here, when the pre-Reformation kirk was restored and rebuilt in 1806, not only was the pre-Reform belfry recycled, but the ancient Pictish stone with its incised carvings was built into the top right course of the south kirk wall. While now difficult to view, It bears Pictish Class I symbols of crescent-and-V-rod, double-disc-and-Z-rod and mirror-and-comb. It probably served as the original sacred boundary marker for this early pre-Christian Pictish place; it dates to the fifth century. It will have remained as a sacred boundary marker for 300 years before King Nechtan’s Christianizing campaign in the 8thC introduced cross-carved stones.

Throughout the early years of Christianity in this far-northern corner of the former Pictish kingdom, therefore, sacred sites were in no immediate danger.

In 596 Pope Gregory I sent Augustine to England with the following instruction:

“By no means destroy the temples
of the idols belonging to the British, but only the idols which are found in them; inasmuch as they are well-constructed, it is necessary that they should be converted from the dowership of demons to the true God.”

A century after Augustine, however, more extreme measures were called for: in Theodore’s Penitential, AD690, also related to South Britain:

“idolatry, worship of demons, cult of the dead, worship of nature, Pagan calendar customs and festivals, witchcraft and sorcery, augury and divination and astrology”

were banned. Yet the old ways persisted.

Meanwhile Nechtan created his own elaborate means of consolidating his kingdom and allying himself with Rome. He built stone Peter kirks throughout his land.

Class IV cross-incised stone in south perimeter wall at Bourtie

Megalithic structures such as the Aberdeenshire recumbent stone circles survive in every parish where continuity was perpetuated in Pictish church reform. The Pictish Christian cross or cross-stone invariably appears within sight of a stone circle. Bourtie has two stone circles, one to the west of the kirk; the other to the east.

They too, however, became endangered in the 18th and 19th centuries when farmhouses were being built in stone and work proceeded apace in the landscape to clear stones and boulders in farming improvement. The drystane dykes which were common boundaries of farmland until the 21st century date from this 18thC improvement.

Stone circles invariably survived. In the words of one 18th-century Northeast clergyman:

“superstition spares them though stones are so scarce”

Class I incised Pictish symbols, geometric and animal designs

Five known Class I stones in Aberdeenshire still stand on their original sites:

Ardlair, Kennethmont; Nether Corskie, Dunecht; the Insch Picardy Stone at Whitemyres Farm; Brandsbutt in a housing estate in Inverurie (re-constituted after 19thC dynamite blasting) and the Rhynie Craw Stane.

Moray Class I stones thought to be in situ stand at Congash and Upper Manbeen.

The rest, totalling an unknown figure (32 recorded), abound in museums in the Northeast, in Edinburgh and London or are “lost”.

Class II Stones

Class II relief-carved Pictish cross stone in St.Mary's Monymusk

Local lairds also had their fair share of the spoils. In the rush to comply with post-Reformation instruction to build new churches, often on pagan sites, stones were broken up for building, reused in threshing floors or as millstones, or taken to form a decorative feature at the laird’s house.

Pictish Class II cross slab in Migvie kirkyard, Tarland

The Maiden Stone is the only so-called Class III Pictish stone in Aberdeenshire.

The list of Class IV cross-incised stones dating from Nechtan’s improvement years is as yet incomplete.

The largest in situ is the boundary stone in the illustration (top) which remains in the Afforsk landscape exactly on the parish boundary between church lands of Chapel of Garioch, Inverurie and Monymusk. Its immovable size suggests that it was carved to serve in the original Pictish tradition of marking a sacred precinct, rather than for later use as a portable ‘pillow’.

Recent research suggests that portable crosses – roughly circular stones like pillows carved with a simple cross and pre-dating the eighth century [class II] Pictish cross slabs – were the hallmark of early travelling holy men. If they were sent from Nechtan’s headquarters in the Pictish capital at Forteviot or from his northern fortress at Fyvie, their reach was far indeed.

Several compact Christian amulets of this type surface in Aberdeenshire, temptingly close to early foundations: cross-inscribed stones [with no other ornament] appear at Aboyne, Afforsk, Banchory, Barra, Botriphnie, Bourtie, Clatt, Crathes, Culsalmond, Deer, Dyce, Ellon, Fintray, Inverurie, Kinnernie, Logie-Coldstone, Logie-Elphinstone, Monymusk, Ruthven and Tullich. A saint’s well to baptise converts invariably lies close to such foundations. After they died, their relics – ranging from pillows of stone to crozier and bell – were treasured by the community. Monymusk’s greatest treasure, the Monymusk reliquary, a gold and jewel-encrusted shrine made to house the little finger bone of its patron, is in Edinburgh’s Museum of Scotland.

While Dyce, Fintray, Botriphnie and Aboyne are known to have such relics, like Banchory Ternan’s ‘Ronan bell’, Bourtie has neither well nor saint recorded. Neighboring parish, Bethelny, once linked by minister-on-horseback to Bourtie, now has no church either. Foundations remain in the grass on the farm there, but its saint (Nachlan), its parishioners and its parish have become, like Bourtie, absorbed into Meldrum.

Maintenance and continuity within these ancient places by the Edinburgh behemoth is laudable. There are some discrepancies, however. Alternative episcopal religion slighted at the Reformation in favour of John Knox’s simpler dogma survives in the Scottish Episcopalian Church. It receives no grants for ground or building maintenance by the state; meanwhile the ‘reformed’ religion has full Council back-up in support and maintenance of graveyards. This sadly means that in summer months monstrous mowing machinery slices its way over grass, fallen masonry, private floral tributes, 18th century table stones, unique 16th century grave markers, relentlessly obliterating the past in its efforts to keep the present ‘neat’. Not only is the kirkyard pristine in its ‘neat and tidyness’, but it is losing its antiquities at a great rate to the weighty modern machine.

The Calvinist camp may think enlightenment has been achieved. But for antiquities, it is a Pyrrhic victory.

©Marian Youngblood is the author of Bourtie Kirk: 800 Years, available from Amazon or direct from Cleopas Publishing, Inverurie AB51 0JS
ISBN 0-9526-365-2-2 (1995).

St Andrews was founded on the legend that the bones of the Christian apostle St Andrew were brought here, over 1000 years ago. Credulous pilgrims flocked from all over Europe to worship the saint’s relics, and he became the patron saint of Scotland. The saltire cross – the flag of St Andrew – was subsequently adopted as the national emblem.

From those early days, religion was a strong influence in the development of St Andrews. Celtic monks built the church of St Mary on the Rock, the ruins of which still stand near the harbour, and the imposing St Rule’s Tower is all that remains of the first church of the Augustinian priory in St Andrews.

The great Cathedral, constructed in 1160, was for seven centuries the largest building in Scotland. Its majesty helped to establish St Andrews as the centre of the country’s religious life, which in turn helped the town to become hugely influential in Scottish political circles.

Medieval St Andrews had two friaries: one founded by the Dominicans (Blackfriars), whose ruined chapel still remains, and later another for the Franciscans (Greyfriars) for whom the only mark left on the town is a street name.

Religion was also important in the story of St Andrews Castle. The original castle was built sometime around the year 1200 A.D. and served as both fortress and residential palace for the Bishops and Archbishops of St Andrews. It later housed John Knox and other Protestant reformers.

The 16th Century was the most turbulent period in the history of St Andrews. The (Catholic) Archbishop of St Andrews, Cardinal David Beaton, was the leader of the anti-Protestant movement within the Scottish church and had orchestrated the trials and executions of several “heretics”. When Beaton arranged for the trial and burning at the stake of leading Protestant George Wishart in 1546, the town became an even more volatile place. Before long, Beaton too was dead – a victim of an assassination.

The Calvinist John Knox came to live and preach in the town, but was captured from St Andrews Castle by French Catholic forces in 1549 and enslaved. When Knox returned in 1559, he preached a fiery sermon in Holy Trinity Church which reputedly sparked off a riot amongst the congregation. St Andrews Cathedral was sacked by Knox’s followers, and this effectively signalled the end of the town as a dominant religious force in Scotland.

St Andrews is scattered with reminders of these bloody times. Martyrs’ Monument, on The Scores, commemorates the Protestant reformers who died, and markings on the streets indicate where executions took place.

Even after the end of the tumultuous Reformation, St Andrews was unable to rest in peace. Men and women accused of witchcraft were thrown into the sea below The Scores. If they drowned in “Witch Lake” they were declared innocent; if they swam to shore, they were deemed guilty, seized and burned at the stake at nearby Bow Butts.

See also: the History page for details on visiting the St Andrews Castle, Cathedral and Museum.

If you have been influenced by Calvinism, or you would like to know more about it, please take the time to watch this excellent video by Jesse Morrell called, “Indictments Against Calvinism.”  God bless you.

CHRISTIANS NEED TO BEWARE OF MIKE HUCKABEE

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
November 2, 2007

With Christian conservatives trying to scramble to find a Republican presidential candidate they can support, some of them seem to be coalescing around former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Janet Folger, especially, seems to be trumpeting his candidacy. But is Mike Huckabee someone Christian conservatives should be supporting? Not everyone thinks so.

Randy Minton, chairman of the Arkansas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s national Eagle Forum, said, “We called him a pro-life, pro-gun liberal, when I was in the state legislature and he was governor.” Phyllis Schlafly herself was even more direct.

President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, said this about Governor Huckabee: “He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.” She went on to say, “Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a ‘compassionate conservative’ are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.”

Even one of Huckabee’s strongest supporters within the Religious Right, Pastor Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, admitted, “Mike has always sought the validation of elites.” rest of article here.

In the rest of the article it was revealed that Mike is indeed a panderer to liberals as was recently pointed out by one or more prominent conservative radio show hosts. He was called an “opportunist” by someone who worked with him, and it was pointed out that he had made an insane comment as to why non-citizens should be allowed to vote. After a few minutes of hearing these extra clues about who Mike is, I was reminded of an evil “Christian” pastor in a nearby Assembly of God church, who looks a little like Mike, and this pastor is an Arminian. This Arminian was also an opportunist, who recently last year attempted to use a sermon refuting Bill Maher, Oprah Winfrey and I think some other person, to draw crowds. Unlike Huckabee however this pastor was probably speaking against these liberals, being a conservative type opportunist. I have no problem with allowing illegal immigrants to be citizens, so long as they buy their citizenship and learn a few English words, but for them to vote in a country in which they did not give something to get something, not even at a cheap price, is foolish. It’s foolish because many of them won’t know how to speak English, and with no money to at least by translation devices, our work efficiency will be increasingly hampered. Further, we should charge them in order to obtain medicine to defend against the diseases that these immigrants may be carrying.

A genuine Christian, as in someone who strongly endorses Christianity and obeys at least 9 of the commandments, the exception being the sabbath commandment, who reasons insanely, is usually going to be an Arminian and/or a from some cultic type Christian sect, in rare cases Calvinists will say crazy things, but that doesn’t last long after you correct them. There are false Calvinists though who can’t be corrected, and they are easily exposed when put to the test.

As I lay in bed this morning, oversleeping for the first time in a few weeks (and happy to be challenged by the alarm clock 5X/week again), my dreaming mind drifted through a number of small, mostly forgettable vignettes. The only one I can still remember had Shelley and me as owners of a business where every Saturday was Sausage Saturday. I don’t recall what type of business it was. Living in Berkeley County, West Virginia, it could have been anything, and I do mean anything. (shudder)

And I also concocted a great idea for a blog entry. Something about friends. It was funny. But I’ve lost it. I do remember being very relieved to finally find some inspiration to update my blog.

Maybe it’s best I’ve forgotten the topic. Dreams can make the worst ideas seem great. I’ve had dreams where I’ve aced a KILLER stand-up routine, with audience members rolling the floors in laughter. And as I’ve dreamt this, I’ve told myself to remember this wildly wacky material upon waking. But when I wake and ponder it lucidly, it’s dumb. Stupid. Useless. Alas, my great idea for a blog entry was probably not so great to begin with.

So what next? I could do another “dot … dot … dot” entry. “I think with just a little more love, any smoker could finally break the habit … Why don’t we just call those rabid Apple computer users ‘macadamia nuts’ and be done with it already … If Mama Cass had shared part of her sandwich with Karen Carpenter, they’d both be alive today…” You get the idea.

I’ve posted two random thought essays to my blog and, if I may say so, they were pretty funny (even when pondered in an awake state). But I wanted my return to blogging to be a bit more meaty. So I decided to discuss my career goings-on.

Several weeks ago, I began doing “stringer” work for the Journal news in Martinsburg. That’s been a lot of fun. I’ve had opportunity to write articles about horse rescue farms, veterans, festivals and fairs, haunted houses, etc. My favorite assignment was to a woman’s small chocolate factory nestled in Inwood. Got free samples there. But for some reason, this article hasn’t been published yet. I hope she doesn’t think I tried to scam her out of a plate of chocolate bon-bons.

A few weeks ago, I joined the sales staff at the local radio station cluster (hence the ‘glad to be enslaved to the alarm clock’ phenom). It’s a fun job, but I fear it won’t pay much. Still, it’s better than my paycheck over the last six months, which was ZERO (less taxes, social security, medicare – still ZERO).

And THEN, a couple of weeks after joining the radio station and ending my job search activity, I received a call from the search committee hiring for my DREAM JOB. I’d applied for the job prior to joining the radio station. Their decision is, as of this writing, pending. I won’t say much more here, I don’t want to jinx it. Of course, I believe in divine destiny, and I don’t think God can be ‘jinxed,’ but to be safe…

So life is returning to some semblance of normalcy, finally. Even without my recent travails into the working world, I’d still have plenty to be thankful for this week. But it’s nice to have the opportunity to be grateful for the ability to work, earn, take care of those who rely on me and honor my obligations.

And now I’ll close with another random thought: I believe that even the most staunch Calvinist is an Armenian twice in his lifetime – on takeoff and landing. Just ask any Calvinist.

My blogging buddy Bryan Lopez (no relation) who blogs at, appropriately enough, bryanlopez.com, is giving away a 22 Volume Calvin Commentary.

I know that many of you are Calvinist and proud, so I encourage you guys to check out Bryan’s blog and contest and enter. I really dig Bryan and his blog, and his organization sounds like a worthy venture. However, I’m not entirely sure I would have a happy holidays if I brought home a 22 volume encyclopedia-like set (my wife might freak out-we are bursting at the seams with books as it is).

So I am happy to promote Bryan’s contest, but I regrettably will not be entering the contest. The contest is simple, just post about it and/or befriend his organization on facebook to enter. Good luck!

 Deception Driven Church? You decide…

 Stuart L Brogden Home

Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren

Who is Monica Dennington?

Exposing a denier of the Trinity!

—————————————————————————————————————
CAUTION: It is my desire for Monica Dennington of the TicToc Ministries to repent and come to the Orthodox Christian faith. It is not my intention that any harm would befall on her or on her family nor it is my wish for her to go to hell.

The authors of the video clips and the Youtube channel owners mentioned in this blog are not responsible for the contents of this blog! They do not necessarily agree with the author of this blog either!
—————————————————————————————————————

Monica Dennington of the TicToc ministries is a deceitful person who pretends to be a Christian preacher.  She sends out several group messages to many Christian users in the Youtube.  She appears to be preaching the Gospel.  However in recent month she has revealed to the Youtube  Christian community about her true identity!    She first viciously attacked the Reformed Theology and now attacking the Holy Trinity!

So many Youtube Christians users are like to be deceived by Monica Dennington. Hence this blog has been created with an intention to display all kinds of refutations to Monica Dennington teachings!

Monica claims that the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible. So what?

Let us read Exodus 3:6

http://bible.cc/exodus/3-6.htm

I am the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God.

Does Exodus 3:6 talk about the resurrection of the dead? No, The word resurrection is not mentioned in this verse. However Jesus Himself quoted this word and clearly stated that this verse was about resurrection.
Matthew 22:31 and Matthew 22:31

Haven’t you read what God told you about the dead coming back to life? He said,

‘I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’ He’s not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Resurrection is implied here by God saying “I AM” instead of “I was” or “I used to be” the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! Likewise the term Trinity is implied through out the scriptures even though it is not explicitly stated. Just because a particular term is not mentioned in the Bible, it does not mean the concept is absent.

Do the words begotten and firstborn deny the eternity of Jesus?

The words begotten and firstborn do not deny Jesus’ eternal existence. The declaration, “You are My Son; today I have begotten You” (Psalms 2:7), is based on God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:14. Those words were spoken as part of the coronation ritual for the kings in the Davidic line. In the New Testament, they are linked to Christ’s right to rule, as evidenced by His resurrection (Acts 13:33, 34; Romans 1:4; Hebrews 1:5, 8; 5:5)

The expression only begotten in John 1:14 is the translation of the Greek monogenes, from the root genes which means “kind” or “class.” The word begotten should not appear in the translation of this verse. Jesus Christ is “in a class by Himself”, “the only one of His kind”, “unique”. He is unique in that He, though appearing in human form, existed from all eternity.

The expression firstborn in Colassians 1:15 (also Romans 8:29 and Hebrews 1:6) refers to His place of preeminence as the God-man. He possesses and exercises the rights of a firstborn Son.

Hebrews 12:23 says:
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.

Here the word firstborn obviously does not mean first ever created human beings!

In the early Church history that heretic Arius did not understand this concept and now his “daughter in the spirit” Monica Dennington is following his legacy and propagating it through the internet.

Below is the collection of video clips available in the Youtube in response to Monica Dennington’s heretical teachings!!!

In the Youtube God has raised up His children to refute the false teachings of Monica Dennington!

Bianca, a wonderful sister in Christ exposes Monica Dennington!

http://www.youtube.com/user/HereticHunters

http://www.youtube.com/user/aProdigalChild

Other Video Clips Exposing Monica Dennington:

Youtube user http://www.youtube.com/user/RedBeetle refutes Monica Dennington

“The Monty Collier Report”

Youtube User http://www.youtube.com/user/fruitofspirit answers Monica Dennington!

Monica Dennington’s Campbellite Solution – I

Monica Dennington’s Campbellite Solution – II

Youtube user http://www.youtube.com/simone56 responds to Monica:

Simone56’s Introduction

Simone56 Response – Part 1

Simone56 Response – Part 2

To be continued…

"Recovering? Who said I was recovering?"

I was just watching some sessions from 2004’s Emerging Theological Conversation that I attended at All Souls PCA Church in Decatur with Jasmin and Seth in the fall of 2004 – some five years ago. Walter Brueggemann was the presenting scholar, and Brian McLaren, Tim Keel, Troy Bronsink and others were hosting the dialogues with him (Yes, ladies, there were lots of dudes on stage back in 2004…we got better). It was the first time I’d met Troy; the second time I’d met Chris Seay I believe, and the third time I’d met Brian – I got up the courage to approach Brian afterward and ask him if he needed any editorial feedback, and to my delight & surprise I got to informally work on The Last Word and the Word After That. Good times.

Grrr. Why won't Google Videos format in WordPress?

Soo, yeah. It was at this conference that Brueggemann presented his 19 Theses:

1.     Everybody lives by a script. The script may be implicit or explicit. It may be recognized or unrecognized, but everybody has a script.

2.     We get scripted. All of us get scripted through the process of nurture and formation and socialization, and it happens to us without our knowing it.

3.      The dominant scripting in our society is a script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism that socializes us all, liberal and conservative.

4.     That script (technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism) enacted through advertising and propaganda and ideology, especially on the liturgies of television, promises to make us safe and to make us happy.

5.     That script has failed. That script of military consumerism cannot make us safe and it cannot make us happy. We may be the unhappiest society in the world.

6.     Health for our society depends upon disengagement from and relinquishment of that script of military consumerism. This is a disengagement and relinquishment that we mostly resist and about which we are profoundly ambiguous.

7.     It is the task of ministry to de-script that script among us. That is, too enable persons to relinquish a world that no longer exists and indeed never did exist.

8.     The task of descripting, relinquishment and disengagement is accomplished by a steady, patient, intentional articulation of an alternative script that we say can make us happy and make us safe.

9.     The alternative script is rooted in the Bible and is enacted through the tradition of the Church. It is an offer of a counter-narrative, counter to the script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism.

10.  That alternative script has as its most distinctive feature, its key character – the God of the Bible whom we name as Father, Son, and Spirit.

11.  That script is not monolithic, one dimensional or seamless. It is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent. Partly it is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because it has been crafted over time by many committees. But it is also ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because the key character is illusive and irascible in freedom and in sovereignty and in hiddenness, and, I’m embarrassed to say, in violence – [a] huge problem for us.

12.  The ragged, disjunctive, and incoherent quality of the counter-script to which we testify cannot be smoothed or made seamless. [I think the writer of Psalm 119 would probably like too try, to make it seamless]. Because when we do that the script gets flattened and domesticated. [This is my polemic against systematic theology]. The script gets flattened and domesticated and it becomes a weak echo of the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism. Whereas the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism is all about certitude, privilege, and entitlement this counter-script is not about certitude, privilege, and entitlement. Thus care must betaken to let this script be what it is, which entails letting God be God’s irascible self.

13.  The ragged, disjunctive character of the counter-script to which we testify invites its adherents to quarrel among themselves – liberals and conservatives – in ways that detract from the main claims of the script and so too debilitate the focus of the script.

14.  The entry point into the counter-script is baptism. Whereby we say in the old liturgies, “do you renounce the dominant script?”

15.  The nurture, formation, and socialization into the counter-script with this illusive, irascible character is the work of ministry. We do that work of nurture, formation, and socialization by the practices of preaching, liturgy, education, social action, spirituality, and neighboring of all kinds.

16.  Most of us are ambiguous about the script; those with whom we minister and I dare say, those of us who minister. Most of us are not at the deepest places wanting to choose between the dominant script and the counter-script. Most of us in the deep places are vacillating and mumbling in ambivalence.

17.  This ambivalence between scripts is precisely the primary venue for the Spirit. So that ministry is to name and enhance the ambivalence that liberals and conservatives have in common that puts people in crisis and consequently that invokes resistance and hostility.

18.  Ministry is to manage that ambivalence that is equally present among liberals and conservatives in generative faithful ways in order to permit relinquishment of [the] old script and embrace of the new script.

19.  The work of ministry is crucial and pivotal and indispensable in our society precisely because there is no one [see if that’s an overstatement]; there is no one except the church and the synagogue to name and evoke the ambivalence and too manage a way through it. I think often; I see the mundane day-to-day stuff ministers have to do and I think, my God, what would happen if you took all the ministers out. The role of ministry then is as urgent as it is wondrous and difficult.

It’s interesting that what disturbs us sometimes the first time we hear it ends up comforting us the next time we hear it. More explosively than his challenging theses, it was at this conference that Brueggemann posits that  “God is a recovering practitioner of violence.” As Geoff Holsclaw summarizes – “By this he means that God used to think violence was a good idea, but then gave up on it. However, like all addicts, He has relapses. Of which the cross is either the final deliverance, or another relapse.” Of course this is potentially disconcerting, as we don’t like to imagine the repentance of God – and yet, this is precisely what is suggested in Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan (thanks, Jack Miles!). Incarnation inaugurates a genuine new-ness in God’s new covenant with humanity & cosmos. As Geoff continues, “Concerning faith and knowledge, Brueggemann says: “We all have a craving for certitude, but the gospel is all about fidelity.” By this he means that certitude is an epistemological category while fidelity is a relational one. And the way of the Cross is to depart from our certitude, to die to our answers/desires/scripts.”

Part of the ‘inner reflex’ is Centering Prayer is letting go. For 20 minutes twice a day, it’s a continuous letting go of thoughts and emotions that well up inside – kind of like a fisherman catching fish but not to eat – just for fun. He’s sitting in a boat (the mind) and his pole rests in the water (the field of consciousness). Little fish (thoughts, ideas, emotions) come up and nibble on the line (ordinary awareness) – the fisherman doesn’t shoot the fish with a revolver or cut the line. Instead, he pulls the little fish up, but doesn’t keep them in the boat – it’s catch & release.

Catch and release, catch and release, gently, graciously – because you recognize that even the lake is situated in a much larger ecosystem (God). You can let go because the earth is abundant; you will be fed. Centering Prayer is a journey of trust in God, even on the unconscious level, where all kind of mis-trustful thoughts bubble up to the surface. The life centered in surrender to & trust in God is a life of profound peace and productivity – and our Scriptures attest, in a myriad of ways, that such trust (faith) ‘pleases God.’ But when we’re faced with the disturbing truths that Brueggemann elucidates – God’s irascibility for instance – what do we do?

There are two ways to do handle this. One is the way of definitive, forceful – almost violent – denial that there is (or has ever been) anything troubling in God’s character or actions. It’s the route of trusting God via suppression.

But there is another route – more painful, more adult, more complex – but I think it can still end in deeply-rooted, childlike trust. It’s a path that I’ve learned from many guides over the years, including Bruggie Baby (sorry for the familiarity, but it’s really hard typing his name over and over again), Meister Eckhart, the Jewish scholar Richard Elliot Friedman in The Hidden Face of God, Jack Miles in his Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God, ‘deeper life’ missionary and teacher Norman Grubb, and the process theologians that Tripp Fuller is getting me to read (like his professor Philip Clayton of Transforming Theology) or listen to & he and Chad Crawford’s uber-awesome podcast Homebrewed Christianity – all refined in the daily, simple crucible (quite actually) of centering prayer as taught by Contemplative Outreach and particularly Cynthia Bourgeault. (Did you read that paragraph, Ken Silva? It was practically tailor-written for you, LOL. If you don’t write about me, Discernmentalist Mafia will!)

And this is the path: As Grubb proposes a radically panentheistic reading of Holy Writ, there is only One Person in the Universe. (Y’know, like “I Am the Lord your God, there is no Other?”) Creation unfolds inside of God. And within this unfolding, it moves from gross to subtle to causal (sorry, had to throw a little Integral theory in here) – meaning that God once walked around and acted, anthropomorphically, as a human being. Gradually across the narrative shape of the Hebrew Bible, God began to withdraw God’s conscious presence in this way – “I will hide My face from them, and see what their fate may be.” God goes from walking around earth to appearing via angelic intermediaries; to public miracles, to dreams and visions and prophets, to private subjective experiences to interpretations written out in a Book. In Ruth and Esther, God is scarcely mentioned at all. (God then repeats this process again in Jesus – but the same progression from overt to subtle takes place on the pages of the New Testament and in Church history) We could lament this move as somehow connected to God punishing us; withheld manifest presence as a result of our sin or some such thing. On the other hand, what if we as a human race are growing up, maturing, and therefore God appears to us in more mature ways? In this way, God is very actively involved in our history as a parent, but then gives us space to get older – not becoming more distant, but in fact closer than our very breath. God’s presence moves from the obvious to the sublime. (Which would explain, to me, why Monotheistic Western religion – in the form of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – starts out very concrete-operational in its orientation and almost inevitably moves to the mystical. The majority adherents might not make that leap, but it undeniably does seem like a leap forward.)

Now, here’s the same thought from another trajectory: God influences us, that we’ve always known; but what if we – the sum total of we, human and non-human life alike – influence God? If we’re bound up in him, marked off in God before our conception, our learning and growing is God’s learning and growing – what if? I don’t mean to rehash the entire Open Theism vs. Calvinism debate of the 1990s here, but I think that it’s possible to simultaneously hold that God is good, wise, and powerful while also affirming the ability of God to learn and (even) change God’s mind – we see so many examples of this in the narrative of Scripture, that it seems fool-hardy to deny this in order to preserve our cherished Greco-Roman structured systematic theologies.

So, today, in a secular age, we affirm that God is true and real, but we wrestle with what this means. We stake our lives on the goodness of God, but we recognize that ‘goodness’ might be different today, as it truly seems to be if you’re looking at Covenantal unfolding in Scripture. This just seems developmentally true: If you’re someone who, like me, is committed to peace and justice work today but grew up watching the 700 Club approvingly as a kid, you’ve experienced the dissonance that God, just possibly, has experienced: What made perfect sense in the 1980s seems cruel and inhuman today. And this is precisely what Abraham and Moses are recorded as having argued to YHWH some 4,000+ years ago: “Don’t wipe out this-or-that people, LORD; it’s bad PR. It does not magnify the glory of Your Name; it does not add to the praise of Your reputation.” Sometimes, YHWH did what he was going to do anyway; sometimes, he listened and changed course.

What does this have to do with our lives today? Is this a wildly unstable theology of God? Is such a changeable God not worthy of worship? I don’t know about that. I think that, if the evangelical mantra is true, and we can indeed have ‘a personal relationship with G-D,’ then this relationship is a genuine one with real give-and-take, real learning on both sides. I think that I can be an orthodox Trinitarian Christian with a high Christology, and still hold that the Universe is one important aspect of the unfolding of God – and that we are the co-unfolding of God within God. And that we recognize this unfolding, and respond to it, and even initiate its furtherance of it, on a deep, nourishing level when we learn to trust the God Who Is – as opposed to the fantasy God whom we fondly wish Would Be. This path is more difficult – but this is real trust.

Watch or listen to the complete 2004 Emergent Theological Conversation with Walter B. here.

My Testimony as a Past Pretender:

God’s adopted children all speak the same language– the language of truth that our Lord has mercifully taught to us. We understand each other, while yet the darkness does not comprehend.

I was raised as an Arminian/Pelagian”Christian. I could write (another) essay on that, but to summarize, the Arminian does not comprehend and/or believe in full depravity, per “in my human flesh there is no good thing.” The Arminian holds, if faintly, to the worldly doctrine of the heart being the source of goodness; (the “follow your heart” theology of the so-called nonreligious).

The Arminian Christian believes there is at least just enough goodness in him that he has the capacity to choose to open the door of his heart to God– (This being the precondition upon which God’s grace depends; i.e., the man has initiated the covenant with God, rather than vice-versa, as all scripture testifies.) If we understand that a man is dead and utterly hates God, we understand that there is no way for that man to get up and open the door to welcome the God he hates. Grace is now truly grace, and God receives all the glory, which He rightly deserves.

The ministers of Arminianism were my cruel taskmasters in Egypt. I was a wretched man, but the lies around me gave some form of assurance that I was “trying my best” and “with the right people” and there really wasn’t much else I could do, despite that I continually failed to overcome the world and my flesh, which I secretly loved. Ultimately, I went down the path of discouragement and despair, to the point that I quit God. At that very point, in my undeserving state, God pulled me out of my filthy pit and cleaned me off. Since then, it has been a delightful journey of growth in Christ. Things (such as reading and praying) that were once a chore done out of obligation are now my appetite and nourishment. I still fall into the swimming pool at times, but like a cat, I despise the water and jump out, shaking the drops off. I am no longer the dog who plays and splashes and encourages my friends to do the same.

God’s name be exalted among the nations!

Repent of your good works.

If you thought the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and the Larger (WLC) and Shorter Catechisms (WSC) are excellent summaries of Christian doctrine and practice, you’ve seen nothing yet.

Enter: The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism (SPNC). This is absolutely hilarious. Here’s a little snippet:

9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

Read the rest here.

I just recently found out about an organization called Love Packages. You can find them at www.lovepackages.org . They distribute Bibles, Christian teaching materials, and Christian literature to parts of the world where people actually want it!

Here is how it works. They have access to many places where people want the word of God. Two examples are Zambia and Kenya in Africa. There are places in these two African countries where 20 people read each piece of Christian literature before it is discarded. Where else do you find this level of interest in God’s word?

Love Packages will ship Bibles and Christian literature to their missionary contacts. These contacts will distribute the information to the local people. There have been instances where even the most hardened criminals in maximum security prisons have been saved from reading God’s word. Later, missionaries were able to go into the prisons and begin Bible studies.

If you wish to get involved in this wonderful opportunity, you can order Bibles and other Christian teaching materials and have them shipped to Love Packages at 220 Union Street in Butler, Illinois, 62015. You can also go to their site and leave a donation if you prefer.

Bible Bible God’s Word Missions Missions Missions Prison Ministry Prison Ministry Bible Bible God’s Word Missions Missions Missions Prison Ministry Prison Ministry Bible Bible God’s Word Missions Missions Missions Prison Ministry Prison Ministry Bible Bible God’s Word Missions Missions Missions Prison Ministry Prison

Dear Timothy,

I wasn’t able to make the formatting work in a comment on a previous post and so I just started “part 2″ of this discussion as a new post.  I’ve looked over and thought about some of the things you said in your first response related to  my TULIP Logic versus a Calvinist’s Statement post from 11/05/09.  Allow me to toss back my $0.02 worth and I’d welcome any response(s) you may have.  The brackets I placed in your statements were for my readability to better understand what you were saying.  I’ve tried to maintain the accuracy of your statements – it wasn’t my intention to alter or change anything you said.

Below is a table containing your statements and my response.  I don’t know if this is the best way to compare and contrast our respective thoughts, beliefs, and opinions – but it seems like a reasonable start.

I didn’t intend for this post to get as long as it did.  However, as I look back on this, we seem to be dancing around a central disagreement with regard to the concept of election.  As I said in my post, the U in TULIP appears to be the bedrock of Calvinist belief.  Right now, I’ve reached a different conclusion based on my own understanding and study.

Here’s a simple overview of what I believe election to be and how it came about:

• In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve.  Were they “elect”?

• After the flood, those on the Noah’s arc dispersed and various nations formed.  For His own reasons, God chose the descendants of Abraham (the Israelites) to be “the elect”.  If nothing else, this is corporate election.

• Through Israel (God’s elect), all nations would eventually hear and respond to the salvation of God and could thereby become “elect” by following the law.

• Prophesy was fulfilled when Jesus came and preached to the Jews (the “old” elect) and the Gentiles (the “new” elect) alike about new life in Christ.

So, what does this mean or prove?  Well, Calvinists claim that one not yet saved can be an elect person – it’s just that God hasn’t brought that person to a point of salvation.  However, what I see is that it is the believers – those who have, by faith, trusted Christ for their salvation that are the elect.  Therefore, a person doesn’t become “elect” until he is a believer. As such, being elect is not future oriented wherein a person will believe because God has elected him.  Rather, becoming elect occurs the moment a person believes.  Clearly God wants none to perish.  But it’s obvious that not all are or will be saved and so there seems to be an element wherein individuals are able to accept or reject God’s free gift of salvation.  In conclusion, an elect person is a Christian.

Sincerely,

Bob