Josiah Concept Ministries

In a comment posted here, a reader named Daniel F. writes:

I grew up in a devout very loving Christian family. I love my family, but the Christanity stuff fortunately did not stick. As I grew up, I noticed a lot of Christians were definite in their conviction, but confused on the details. I appreciate your courage in being open to sharing your thoughts. In today’s world, that definitely takes a lot of courage. And so… help me understand this.

How would we think of someone who decided to slaughter a larger portion of a class of preschoolers? That is, take a gun out and shoot execution style a portion of them? We would consider this person good? Should we praise this person and seek his approval?

Well, I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t. I would consider that outright evil. How would you feel if that story broke on the news? I hope really upset because it went against your moral fabric.

The problem with Christianity and other religions like Islam is that they very much promote moral corruption. You said, “God has chosen the elect and will draw them to Himself.” For what reason does God not choose everyone to draw to himself? Why would God create people only to torture them? By the way, who invented evil? If God is all powerful and created the universe, then He did. My dad says hell is the absence of God. Why define an absence? Why define evil?

In this context, is he no different than the murderous, evil human who slaughters the preschoolers?

I’ve e-mailed my response to Daniel, but I thought that I would make my response public since I think that it will help many of my readers who might not have had the courage to write in with the same problems or concerns. Read more »

When I first started studying Calvinism, I thought that the most controversial element of the TULIP was the “L”–Limited Atonement.  This is summed up in the Westminster Confession of Faith III.6:

Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (emphasis added)

But I’ve found that everyone believes in the Limited Atonement, whether they think they do or not.  A Universal Atonement is not just logically impossible, but outright cruel.  Think about it like this: if Christ died in atonement for the sins of all of mankind, then why does God still send people to Hell?  To what point and purpose must some people pay for their sins twice, once vicariously through Christ and then again for all eternity in Hell?

It makes no sense.  Aside from that, only John 3:16 stands in support of a Universal Atonement.  In nearly all other cases where the Atonement is mentioned in Scripture, the word “many” rather than “all” refers to those effectually called and saved.  Looking back at the Old Testament, both Daniel and Isaiah confirm this idea of an elect people, or “the many” (cf. Dan 9:27 and Is 53:11-12)  Scripture teaches, therefore, that only those who die in Christ are effectually saved by the Atonement.  Even non-Calvinist writers agree on this point.

The most controversial element of Calvinism is the doctrine of predestination, which the Confession says “is to be handled with special prudence and care” (III.8).  I found out why last night as I attempted to explain this doctrine to a friend over an Instant Message.  He was aghast that I believed in this doctrine, since (in his opinion) it takes away free will.

First, before I delve into some of the finer points of the misunderstood doctrine of predestination, I must affirm that, to my surprise, Calvinism does teach that mankind has free will.  I say “to my surprise” because I resisted Calvinism for so long for the sinful allure of open theism because of the question of free will.  I made the mistake of checking what the critics said of Calvinism instead of looking at Calvinist authors like R.C. Sproul wrote on the subject.  The Westminster Confession devotes an entire chapter to the free will of man.

In summary, the Confession states that God has placed a free will that is neither good nor evil within man.  Pre-Fall, that will was good and pleasing to God, but mutable so that man could fall from his state of grace.  Post-Fall, the will of man is dead in sin and unable to will and do any spiritual good.  That means that man is unable to save himself apart from the drawing of the Father to Christ.  Upon salvation, God regenerates the sinner and endows him with complete freedom to will and do spiritual good–but not perfectly, so he is still able to will and do evil.

Knowing that Calvinism affirmed the free will of man made it a lot easier for me to call myself a Calvinist, rather than just a reluctant Calvinist.  While waiting in the long line for the most recent Harry Potter book, I had the incredible fortune to read portions of Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul, which helped me see that predestination is the ultimate expression of God’s love and grace, not the expression of tyranny that many critics of Calvinism make it out to be. Read more »

I would have to say that talking to people about Hell is one of the worst ways to evangelize people.  We live in a society that is very, very uncomfortable with the idea of judgment and even less comfortable with the idea of having to serve a sentence.  The “sentence” in this case is eternity and the crime is living life the way that you always do (Rom 3:23).

Therefore, people have invented a comfortable reality for themselves where God doesn’t exist.  For those that simply can’t fathom the universe without a creator, they have watered down the judgment aspect of God and favor only the loving aspects of God.  To them, a God who would consign someone to Hell for eternity is cruel.  Either way, the person who ascribes to these worldviews can live life the way they choose, since God either encourages and loves them as-is or doesn’t exist.

The problem is that God does exist, and as Creator and Lawgiver, has set forth certain rules and regulations for how we must live.  Living any other way is rebellion, which is sin.

We often overlook the holiness of God.  God is pure and holy, and cannot stand the sight of sin.  Read the Law of Moses: the penalty for even minor sins is death.  Paul echoes the sentiment that sin equals death in his letter to the Romans (6:23a).  The message is clear–God cannot be near sin, and cannot simply overlook sin.  Fortunately, as the rest of the passage in Romans 6:23 states, “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

By placing our faith in Christ, we need not fear the holy judgment of God.  But that God judges at all seems to make many people uncomfortable, to the point of physical illness.  Here is a story that I found on Atheist Revolution from a reader named Angela:

My family recently moved to a rural community near Tulsa, OK. My 11 year old daughter previously lived in Morocco for seven years with her loving, muslim relatives. Everything was going very well at her new school until a couple of weeks ago. During recess, her two very, sweet friends tried to save her soul. They informed her that the “rapture” was coming in five years and everyone that wasn’t a christian were going to hell.

My daughter came home from school in tears, telling me she was afraid her family in Morocco were all going to hell. She became violently ill and spent two days in bed without eating or drinking. I took her to a local Unitarian church in Tulsa last Sunday hoping to surround her with some open minded people. She loved it. In fact, there was a female speaker from the local Islam society explaining her religion to the congregation.

We will be attending every Sunday because she loved it so much. My problem is that I don’t. The people were very sweet but the chairs in the worship room were uncomfortable and I can’t stand the boring hymns everyone sang.

I believe in evolution and really feel uncomfortable in the belief of an all-knowing God. She wants to go to church so she can be “normal” like everyone else. We’re stuck between church and social rejection.

Pay attention to the boldfaced portions of this letter; I believe that it shows the real problem that the author has with Hell–God’s judgment.  That thought terrifies her to her very core.

But it need not terrify anyone.  This judgment is reserved only for the folks that do not place their faith in Christ, as John 3:17 states: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

If you are like this girl, and spend two days in bed without food or water because you believe that you’re going to Hell, repent and place your faith in Jesus.  That would be the first step.  The next step is to get your hands on a Bible (BibleGateway has several versions online for free; E-sword is the best free Bible study software around) and study it.  Join a Bible study group; there is very likely one at your local church.  Speaking of church, you should attend one regularly.  Find one that you feel comfortable at.

Since placing my faith in Jesus, I have never looked back nor regretted the decision.  My only desire is to serve Him better and to lift myself up as a Christian example to all.  I fall far short of where I want to be, but I work hard each day to make my life my witness to Him.  I firmly believe that giving your life to God will be the greatest thing that you can ever do, and the best decision you can make.

Hell isn’t the best way to evangelize.  In fact, I think that mentioning it in evangelism is just counterproductive.  I think that the best way to evangelize is to live a life that is exemplary of Christ.  In other words, as St. Francis of Assisi put it: “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.”

The lovely Elizabeth Schmitz has challenged me yet again:

[Y]ou write, “What Elizabeth is doing is taking a modern relationship and reading it back into a culture where it never existed.” I will grant you that. If contextualism is such a concern of yours, perhaps you would refrain from taking the ancient/tribal mores and applying them to modern life… (source)

The issue here is the relevance of social mores that were written between 1450 and 1410 b.c. by Moses, who would have never had so much as a glimpse of modern life. Therefore, why would what he wrote for a group of people, wandering in the desert, be relevant to someone living, stationary, in the Midwestern United States in a.d. 2007?

In many ways, I admit what my critics assert. Tribal codes, as Elizabeth calls them, written between 1450 and 1410 b.c. have no relevance to modern life. So I would contend that I don’t follow them. I follow a higher moral standard that we all know exists, but cannot achieve regardless of how mightily we try. It is all there in our hearts. The Bible does back me up on this:

• “I delight to do your will, O God; your law is within my heart” (Ps 40:8).
• “Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings” (Is 51:7)
• “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer 31:33).

The last of these verses is actually a prophecy. God is stating that He will write His law on the hearts of His people, the elect discussed in the New Testament, so that we will know it instinctively. This way, we will be His people. As one of the elect, I know God’s law instinctively, for the day Jeremiah spoke of has come to pass, the law was fulfilled in Jesus (Mat 5:17).

As a side note, so that I don’t seem to sound so high and mighty, I claim to follow a higher moral standard. I believe that it was God who wrote it on my heart, so that I could be His and He could be my God. I do not, however, claim to ever hit the mark set by this moral standard. I fail in my walk every day. Each day, I also ask God for forgiveness, and try to make amends where I can to the people I hurt.

So that no one can say that the verses in Jeremiah don’t apply to me since I am a Gentile by birth, let me put a few verses out there. First, Romans 4:9-12:

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

This means that all who believe are the descendants of Abraham, not just the physical descendants of Abraham. The apostle continues:

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” (Rom 4:16-22)

Finally, Paul wrote this to the Galatians: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). The distinctions have passed away under the New Covenant, what once applied to the Jews now applies to the Gentiles.

The moral code is written not just in the Bible, but on our hearts. The trouble is, no one recognizes it or follows it (Rom 3:23). This is the first of the five-part Reformed TULIP doctrine: Total depravity. Mankind is dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3). Read more »

I bashed Steve Ray’s take on the Assumption of Mary, but now I have to agree with this piece on his blog.

I’m so tired of seeing the “gay isn’t a choice” rhetoric posted everywhere.  I’m happy to see a website telling stories of people who were formerly gay who gave their lives to Christ and let His Holy Spirit set them free.  We Christians aren’t trying to change gay people: we are truly trying to set them free with the liberating blood of Jesus Christ, who is big enough to overcome any and all sin that a person brings to Him.

We must never forget that Jesus “is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25).  And “neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38-39).  These are powerful, biblical truths that so many of our gay brothers and sisters deny in service to an idolatrous lifestyle.  If only they would turn themselves to Jesus, He will save them.

Thank you, Steve Ray, for telling the truth about this prickly issue.

It seems as though my writing has come to the attention of Jeff Haws, webmaster of the Atheocracy.  Jeff has used a quote from this article to highlight the mindset of Christians in regard to origins.  While I’m flattered that my writing would be used at all, I’m certainly not flattered that Jeff has represented the “typical Christian fundamentalist” mindset and has failed to interact with either the writing itself or my specific view of atheists.

Jeff says:

But this is how they [Christians] think of atheists, as amoral, selfish people because they either can’t fathom how someone could behave in a moral fashion without some supernatural being holding them accountable, or they want people to think they can’t fathom this. (source)

Some Christians, perhaps, think that.  I, however, do not.  And I would like to see where I have ever represented atheists as amoral and selfish.  Indeed, some atheists are more moral and far less selfish than Christians–and one in particular, who goes by PariahJane at the RRS boards, has done at least one good deed that I would never even consider.  Many atheists are more knowledgeable about the Bible than Christians, which I’ve seen proven time and again on the RRS discussion boards.

We can compare and contrast, but without God and without Scriptural authority, we are still left in a lurch as to who decides what is good and what is evil.  Before he became emperor, Palpatine described moral goodness as a “point of view.”  Is that what it is?  Or is moral goodness something objective, something that we can point to and recognize?  If the latter, then we are still left with the question, “Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?”

Jeff actually proves this point himself.  One commenter, HarveyOne, said that atheists lead less sexually moral lives than Christians.  Jeff responds first with this question:

I’m not sure about that, harvey. First, I think you have to determine what amounts to “sexually immoral.” I honestly don’t know. Having sex outside of marriage? Infidelity? Unprotected sex? Massive orgies? Beastiality? I don’t think it’s fair to judge non-Christians by Christian definitions of “immoral,” i.e. sex before marriage. (emphasis added)

Make no mistake: I’m not saying that atheists are immoral.  I really can’t make that assessment; I’m not claiming omnipotence.  All I’m saying is that without God, the definition of morality is left open to the individual.  And the postmodern mindset becomes a serious barrier: what is moral for me is not moral for you.  Now we’re in a mess.

Jeff shows his misunderstanding of Christian teachings later in the combox:

It’s just, while Christians’ consequences come in a theoretical “afterlife,” our consequences come in this one. There are major problems involved in basing your moral compass on what might happen to you after your death, chief among them that no one really knows what is involved in the afterlife, and even many Christians say “Heaven is whatever you want it to be.”

Atheists seem to think that we place more emphasis on the afterlife than the present life.  While we look forward to the afterlife, we certainly have much work to do in this present life.  The Bible places all of its emphasis on the here and now, and very little mind is paid to Heaven.  Although Hell is described pretty clearly as a place that is best avoided.

Maybe to a certain extent, Christians do place much emphasis on the afterlife.  But what is it about this present life that many of us want to ignore?  There really are severe consequences in this life should we ignore the moral precepts given us by God.  I think that Jeff says this better than any Christian writings on the topic: “This moment is all we’re guaranteed. Nothing more. Live it to its fullest.”  Beautiful sentiment, but it lacks definition: How do we live life to the fullest?  Are we back to defining all of this for ourselves, or is there an objective definition?

I’m shocked speechless by this news item.  I absolutely cannot believe that anyone called into ministry would do something this vile and reprehensible.  But the proof is in front of me in black and white.

And Christians actually have the nerve to wonder why we can’t move this unbelieving world closer to belief.  It is because of blatant hypocrisy like this.

The folks over at DefCon, who came to my attention as they fought viciously against the Creation Museum, have a new regular blogger. Although Eliza has posted with some regularity before, it looks like they have granted her full-time status as of today.

I mention this because her post today illustrates how atheists misunderstand our view of sin, and moreover sin itself. She is posting her thoughts on the latest political scandal to hit Louisiana: Senator David Vitter, who admitted involvement in a prostitution ring on Monday.

According to the Associated Press, Vitter rallied against the abysmal display of indifference toward corruption in political office. Ironically, this same indifference will be the key to his reelection. According to the article’s Man-on-the-Street interviews:

“He doesn’t know what’s going on in my bedroom, and I don’t care what’s going on in his,” said Robyn Beaugez, a 34-year-old insurance agent and registered Republican. “As long as he’s not taking money from taxpayers.”

Robin continues:

“Jefferson got elected and we knew what he did,” she said, referring to Rep. William Jefferson, a New Orleans Democrat recently indicted on corruption charges. Jefferson was re-elected in December by a wide margin despite allegations he took $100,000 in bribes, $90,000 of which was found in his freezer. He has denied any wrongdoing.

Ed Buchanan, a mortgage recorder, favorably compared Vitter to former President Clinton. “I’m glad he went to a professional instead of an intern,” Buchanan said.

To me, the most disturbing quote is this:

“The only way it could become an issue is if his opponent was a Pentecostal preacher. I say that tongue in cheek,” said Joe McKeever, director of missions for the Baptist Association of Greater New Orleans.

“Do you remember that quote about (former Louisiana Gov.) Edwin Edwards: ‘The only way I’d lose is if they catch me in bed with a live boy or a dead girl,’” McKeever asked. “Our expectations are abysmally low.”

The minister should be speaking against this sin! Instead, he’s just shrugging it off. Eliza thinks that this is the same attitude of Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council blog, who defends Vitter to the AP and in his blog.

Eliza, however, links to this article where Perkins spoke out against Mitt Romney for not doing enough to stop the flow of porn into hotel rooms. Then Eliza sarcastically remarks, “So, just to recap: it’s ok to sleep with a prostitute if you say you are sorry, but it is definitely not ok to offer pornography in hotel rooms. Good to know.”

Eliza wants readers to think that Perkins’s position is inconsistent with Christianity’s own stance on sin. While it is doubtful that Eliza does, in fact, understand Christianity’s view on sin, I have no way to know that for certain. Instead, I will demonstrate why Eliza’s own view is inconsistent. I believe that it is inconsistent on purpose to feed anti-religious right sentiment, which is exactly DefCon’s purpose for existence.

First, Tony Perkins is consistent with Christian values for defending Vitter but attacking Romney. Perkins is a personal friend of Vitter, according to the AP, a fact that Eliza fails to mention. As a friend, a Christian friend, Perkins should forgive Vitter (see Mat 18:21-22 and my commentary here).

One other thing that Eliza misses–on purpose, I’m sure–is what Perkins is defending. Perkins is not defending Vitter’s behavior, but is supporting his friend in his time of need. Perkin’s blog and press statement reflect this fact.

On his blog, Perkins said:

The statement by my friend and former colleague, Louisiana Senator David Vitter, was very disappointing. He admitted to a “serious sin” in a statement he released to the press on Monday, prior to news reports revealing that his phone number appeared on a long list of client’s numbers of the now infamous DC Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. [emphasis added]

And went on:

While I commend him on assuming personal responsibility and working to make things whole in his life, I cannot defend David’s behavior. Adultery is a serious matter that affects not only the individuals involved but families and the well being of the entire community. Voters have the right to consider issues like this when they assess the character of an elected official. [emphasis added]

I didn’t expect Eliza to point any of that out. Her position is very unbalanced, written specifically to incite readers’ emotions. She makes it sound as if Perkins considers Vitter’s actions as justified because they worked together on some issues. She fails to point out statements that I have quoted above, statements that flesh out Perkins’s relationship with Vitter and give a better insight to Perkins’s true position on this issue.

As Christians, we must forgive our brother not seven times, but seventy times seven times, which is a first-century Jewish idiom for infinity. Seven isn’t a cap or a limit, but the number of wholeness and completion. The Bible’s use of the number seven implies similar usage as we would use the English words or phrases “always” and “for all time.” In that light, we can better understand Perkins’s use of Proverbs 24:16.

Perkins told the press:

“There’s room to make a mistake and come back,” said Tony Perkins, an evangelical former state representative and head of the Family Research Council in Washington. Perkins, who calls Vitter a personal friend, said he would vote for the senator if he proves he has “moved on.” [emphasis added]

The key to understanding this in a way that Eliza does not is the words “moved on.” Christianity isn’t a calling to simply say “I’m sorry,” the way Eliza paints in her short post. It is a call to repent–that is, to change. After all, what did John the Baptist say? It wasn’t “Say you’re sorry and move on.” It was “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!” (Mat 3:2, emphasis added) Change is implicit within the call to repent.
Perkins wants evidence that Vitter has moved on, has conquered this sin, before voting for his friend. And why not? The apostle Paul said:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? [Rom 6:1-2]

Why would a person, saved by the grace of God, continue in a life that only leads to death? It doesn’t make sense. Repentance is a call for us to change our lives and live lives that are pleasing to God. As Paul states:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. [Rom 12:1-2]

Perkins is calling for that repentance–that change. If no call to repent was found anywhere within Perkins’s defense of Vitter, then Perkins would be inconsistent. However, the call for change is found both on his blog and in in his statement to the AP.

Eliza thinks that Christians are OK with sleeping with prostitutes if the john says he’s sorry, but we’re never OK with pornography in hotel rooms. Well, I think I have effectively answered the first half of that: we are never OK with sin, but we are called to forgive our own, always. I have shown that saying “sorry” is not enough, the person must repent. Now, I will show why Perkins’s position on Mitt Romney is still perfectly consistent.

This article has all of the answers. Romney has spoken out against the availability of pornography many times, and rallied to have it regulated. However, when he was a member of the the board of the Marriot hotel chain, he did nothing to stem the flow of it into the rooms. Romney didn’t even bring the issue up at a board meeting. He claimed to be unaware of how much revenue came from it. In this case, Romney is the one who is being inconsistent, not Perkins! Perkins was right to point that out. Again, silence on that issue from Eliza.

So let’s everyone welcome Eliza to the DefCon blog. Her inconsistent position, filled with cherry-picked details that fail to paint the whole picture of what is going on, along with her misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches will be just what DefCon needs to win more support from people who will read the short posts and not investigate the details. They will continue to see what DefCon wants them to see. They will continue to be incensed about Christianity’s seemingly inconsistent positions without investigating why we seem to have them–and in the process discover not only that they are consistent but also discover the Savior who first taught us.

That will continue to fuel more misunderstanding about the nature of sin and how it separates us from a God they refuse to acknowledge.