Josiah Concept Ministries

There are many conversations in the blogosphere that happen to be going on at the moment that I would like to join, but find myself without the time to do so.  Therefore, I just decided to do a round up of the best that’s out there, and add a few imperfect thoughts to the mix.

First, for those unaware,  Dr. Francis Beckwith, a respected theologian, has recently converted to Roman Catholicism.  I’m no friend of the church of Rome, but everything I have to say can be read here at Dr. James White’s blog.  It’s just so difficult to believe that someone who has spent his life studying the Bible can convert to a religion that preaches so much contrary to the book he professes to love and defend.  As Dr. White says, and as I (a former Catholic) can attest, there is no teaching of God’s grace or forgiveness.

I know I sometimes feel like the adulterous woman in John 8:3-11.  Except that I’m a man.  And I haven’t committed adultery.  That aside, I feel like I’ve laid before God, all my sins and iniquities there for Him to see.  And He says to me what Jesus said: “I don’t condemn you.  Go, and sin no more.”

It’s so powerful, the grace of God.  That He is willing to forgive those children of His who, like me, lay their sins before Him and repent–and then just say to us simply, “Go, and sin no more.”  How many times will He forgive us?  I assume the same number of times that Jesus told Peter to forgive a brother that wronged him: “Seventy times seven times.”  That’s a Hebrew idiom that means “infinity.”

All of this because of Christ’s death on the cross.

Rome doesn’t preach that.  In Rome’s gospel, we somehow have to clean ourselves first, we have to do something to earn our salvation.  Of course, we can never know for sure if we have earned our salvation; that’s the sin of presumption.  Instead, we have to trust  in a repeating sacrifice of the Mass, the “infallible” interpretations offered by the church hierarchy, the sacraments, and (of course) an indeterminate stay in purgatory.  Those may cleanse us of our sins.

Of course, the real gospel message is one of simple repentance and preparedness to do the good works of God: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:8-10, emphasis added).  The Jesus of the gospel saves perfectly, every time (Heb 10:14).  We need no other imperfect sacrifice, offered repeatedly on the altars of Roman Catholic churches everywhere, we only need Jesus (Heb 10:1).

Yet, Dr. Beckwith appears to believe otherwise.  I suppose we should pray that God will reveal His truth to Dr. Beckwith in His time, and that this move will demonstrate God’s glory in a way that would not otherwise be possible.  God does make all things work together for the sake of His people (Rom 8:28).

DefCon–an organization for the Defense of the Constitution–is taking on Dr. Ken Ham’s upcoming Creation Museum by circulating two petitions, one for academics and one for ordinary citizens, but to what purpose I cannot ascertain by reading the petition.  It only calls for opposition to the Creation Museum, not to shut it down.  It doesn’t even ask us to boycott it.

Ham has answered the critics on his blog several times by repeatedly using the catch phrase “They haven’t even visited it.”  Yeah, Doc, but they already know our arguments as literal-Genesis guys, same as we know their arguments as evolutionary biologists, right?  So they can guess what is in there.  Same as I can hazard a guess as to what would be in an evolutionary museum.

Aren’t both of us just yammering away the same way?  I mean, evolutionists say that evolution must be true because God didn’t create it, look at the similarities between species, look at the evolutionary tree, etc., etc.  It must be true because the alternative is God!

The creationists do the same thing.  It must be true because the Bible says so, we can explain similarities between species by common design, God’s law and judgment doesn’t exist with 4.6 billion year old Earth, etc. etc.  It must be true, because the alternative is evolution!

We all know that I’m a Young Earth Creationist, that I don’t believe in evolution, and that I work at Burger King.  So what?  I’m still looking at this argument with the eyes of a person who could be dead wrong, since more scientific evidence supports an Old Earth and universe.  I want to believe in a Young Earth since that fits more closely to what the Bible says, but perhaps in the case of Young vs. Old, we just don’t have enough evidence from either side to rule out any possibilities.

Logic forces me to believe in a Creator simply because an infinity of past events leading to the present isn’t possible.  “Infinity” is a concept, not a number to be used in equations.  Time is merely the result of this universe, specifically, planetary bodies orbiting large centers of gravity create what we know as “time.”  Before that, there was no duration, aging, or anything else associated with the passing of time.  God, existing in this eternity, created the universe (and with it, time).  It only makes sense that the Creator of something was never subject to it, since “it” didn’t exist before the Creator created it.

The challenge as a Christian becomes preaching sin, death, and judgment when we know that these concepts are tied to the Fall, but (in an Old Earth model) not unique to the Fall.  The position of Ken Ham and the entire AiG crew is to teach a literal account of Genesis, support a Young Earth model, and thus maintain the integrity of God’s Word.

I, as a Young Earth creationist, believe that some room must exist for science to work its wonders.  Why can’t there be a reconciliation between what one teaches, and the other says?  Many Old Earth creationists believe in the tenets of sin and judgment, and know why death occurs in relation to the Fall, just fine and dandy without having to be Young Earth creationists.

Maybe, instead of my previous post on changing over to Young Earth creationist, I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out.  Of course, being an apologist, I hate wavering on any Biblical issue.  As the defender of God’s truth, I should have a position to defend.  Wavering doesn’t bode well for me.

Of course, I think it does if my motive is to come to the truth of what God is teaching.  I believe that the Christians out there will sympathize with that, but the atheists will see this as a weak point and fire both barrels at it.

And on a weird note, Westboro Baptist Church is getting sued for having a parody video on their website of “We are the World.”  That was such a cheesy song, but it did so much good for the world.  And, of course, that was back when Michael Jackson was cool.  Westboro is now using it to spread their message of hate.

The parody version, “God Hates the World,” is still available on the cult’s web page and the lawyers have issued statements that say it won’t come down.  Let the pissing contest begin!

Hmmm… Interesting title for a worship song.  Do their Bibles not have John 3:16 in it?  That is assuming they actually read the Bible, of course.

Assuming that there was an award for most annoying theist, then the RRS seems to want to present user SugarFree with that coveted title.  She (I think) is trying to witness to this group, as am I, but she tends to take on the role of RRS Mommy.  Her theology is easy to poke holes in.  Let’s observe a few inane comments.

First, Jeremiah Smith posted an argument that is the very reason I consider myself a Calvinist. In response to SugarFree, who said that God can’t reach atheists because they are too hard of heart, Jeremiah writes:

“Hmm, that Jeremiah Smith! He has strayed from the path into the darkness of atheism! I must find a way to guide him back into righteousness! I will begin working on this problem immediately!”
“Using my twin powers of Omnipotence and Omniscience, I have devised the perfect plan to convince Jeremiah Smith of my existence. Now, to put it into action!”
“What is this?! My plan… it’s not working! His atheism is too much for me! It’s… impossible… to overcome… my almightiness is no match for this human! I’m too weak! My me, my me, why have I forsaken me?”

It’s always hilarious to hear theists say things like “God’s calling you but you’re too stubborn to listen!” As if God’s too stupid and/or impotent to come up with a solution that will actually work. You treat atheists as if their “stubbornness” is some sort of kryptonite to God, and when you do it, frankly, it makes you look like a fuckin’ idiot. God can make universes and part seas and predict the future and rule over time and space and raise the dead, but apparently he can’t convince an atheist he exists. He managed to convince a bunch of desert nomads, Jews, and Romans just fine. Did God finish last in his class at Deity School? I bet if God had been valedictorian we wouldn’t have to deal with all that bullshit about “atheists are too stubborn even for God!” Think about this for a moment. Every time you say “God’s calling you but you’re too stubborn to listen!”, I want you think to yourself “I’m a big idiot who thinks God is too impotent and weak to convince a measly little atheist or two that he exists.” I thought God was the shepherd who would leave 99 sheep to look for the one that wandered off. It would appear that God just stands around, says “Sheep? Where are you?” a few times in a quiet voice, and then gives up. And then the other 99 sheep say “Well, I guess that last sheep was just too stubborn to listen.” Come on.

Jeremiah is correct.  God, who is omnipotent, is castrated by the notion that He can’t reach atheists simply because they are so hard of heart.  Instead, the Bible teaches that God will continue to harden a person’s heart who willfuly rejects salvation.  The hardening doesn’t render God impotent; it brings God’s judgment.

Then, JCE (aka Julie) responds to SugarFree’s annoying inability to back anything she says up with hard facts:

To sugarfree: You are, in fact, beginning to become rather antagonizing. Now, while I do not mind playing with you, it does get tiresome when you will not support your statements with anything more than “I feel that I am right.” Everyone feels they are right. The difference is that most of us can support our statements with logical, reasonable arguments. You seem to just want to come here and keep saying the same things over and over. I would encourage you to read posts by razorphreak. He and I have had several discussion and I truly understand where he is coming from in his beliefs. He has carefully explained them and supported them. I do not always agree with him, but we certainly have a better understanding of each other. I would like to achieve this same understanding with you but when you are asked to define or support your beliefs you take a defensive posture and become quite sarcastic about it, which leads us to believe that your beliefs are bullshit.

Razorphreak posts much more thoughtful arguments.  SugarFree tends to just say “I feel…” or “I know that….”  She never seems to provide evidence to back those claims up.

The RRS is big on evidence, folks.  Any theist planning to argue with the atheists over there had better gear up with a lot of evidence.

Uber-Apologist James R. White of Alpha & Omega Ministries has finished his new book, From Toronto to Emmaus, which is a refutation of the Jesus Tomb controversy. Dr. White has written quite a bit about the controversy on his blog, and has spent quite a few sleepless nights–I imagine–putting this book together. It is available for pre-order here.

This is why I wanted to break away from the Buddy Christ icon most of all: the creed written by Bishop Pat Buckley that has become the statement of faith for the International Church of Buddy Christ. Bishop Buckley was consecrated a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, but is not legally a bishop, so to speak. His ordination was valid, but unlawful since it lacked a papal mandate.

I thought I’d analyze the creed here.

I believe that in this world it is impossible to understand God.
I believe that God made this wonderful universe and all that exists.
I can find God in nature, in animals, in birds and the environment.
I believe that God made all men and women,
That He made them all equal,
And that He loves and cherishes them all equally.
I believe that the whole human race is the family of God.

We are good right up to “He cherishes them all equally.” See, the problem with this statement is that it denies simple truth of Holy Scripture. It is impossible to meaningfully interpret texts like “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom 9:13) if you believe that God loves all His creation equally. Same with believing that the whole human race is the family of God.

I believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets
And if so, they too are part of God’s family.

No comment.

I hold that religion and faith are two different things,
That religion can be both good and bad
And that it is spirituality that counts.

Good, good, bad. Spirituality fails to define what feeds the spirit, it leaves you open to find your own path. That helps Satan more than it helps God; for God very narrowly defined how to feed your spirit for a reason.

For me your religion is an accident of your birth
Or a gift of God’s great providential diversity.
There is no one true church.
All churches and all religions contain aspects of the truth.

I can’t believe that your religion is an accident, since God chose the place and time of your birth. He would have also known what religion you would be born into. This means that He intended that from the beginning for His glory. I don’t think that accidents and coincidences are part of God’s plan.

Not all religions contain aspects of the truth. Some are very dangerous.

But only God is truth.
No man is infallible.
A Buddhist or a good atheist is as acceptable to God as a good Catholic.

The problem is the Bible clearly states that there is no one that is good. No one seeks after God, we humans only do evil without the grace of God. So I disagree that there is anyone acceptable to God who is not in Christ.

“No man is infallible” certainly is true, but it puts Bishop Pat square out of the Catholic Church since the Pope is supposedly infallible.

I believe that sex is good and so is the body.

Of course sex is good. If you’re doing it right (as my wife and I are), it is more than good–it is great!!! However, the body we now possess is tainted by sin. The fact that this creed never seems to address sin, man’s fallen nature, or any sort of need for restoration to God’s grace means that the Holy Spirit doesn’t have to enter us and restore our original goodness. Obviously, this is a necessary step in sanctification that is glossed over by Bishop Pat.

The only sexual act that is sinful is the one that uses or abuses.

Disagree. God defined sexual morality the way He did for a very important reason, and we should obey His rules. They aren’t mean or spiteful, they are there for our protection.

I believe in people, especially suffering people.
I believe in the power of weakness.
I believe that all men and women will be saved.
I believe in a packed Heaven and an empty Hell.
And even Satan might get another chance.

Where do we begin on the errors in this section? Well, for starters, any casual reading of the Bible, with a little bit of common sense, would indicate that not everyone is going to get saved. God never intended that. How could He grant us free will unless there was a way to make a bad choice?

Packed Heaven and empty Hell? I think Bishop Pat got it backwards. Jesus Himself said as much (Mt 7:14).

Satan won’t accept another chance; his pride is too overpowering for that. He needs only to believe on Jesus as the Savior, but he won’t do that.

I believe in the freedom of God’s sons and daughters.

To do what, exactly? Could this statement be more vague?

I believe that dogma is often evil.

Loaded statement.

I believe that life is a journey towards God
And that no one has the right to insist that you go a certain road.

Not even God? He has insisted that we travel a certain path: “I am the way, the truth the life. No one comes to the Father except by Me” (Jn 14:6). God insists that we must believe in Jesus as Lord and that He rose again from the dead in order to complete the journey to Him (Rom 10:9)!

I believe that God and reality are too big for my poor words.
I believe therefore that I am only at a beginning.
Only knocking at a door.
And I believe that the best is yet to come.

I agree, but I’m not so sure that Bishop Pat will get anything better than this life. But, I guess I can’t judge a man’s heart, that is only for God.

Either I am truly in the “Big Leagues” of the Christian apologists, or we simply have a skeptic with far too much time on his hands.

I received a letter from “John,” who accuses me of only quoting people that agree with my position and not keeping an open mind on the tomb issue.  I was going to respond to it here, but James White got exactly the same letter, and responded to it here.  White said exactly what I was going to, so read his response and, as John said, “Enjoy your day!”

David Boles is the webmaster of a blog entitled Urban Semiotic, which “was founded to address tender questions of human living and rougher matters rotting the urban core.” I have no problem with Boles, his blog, his opinions, or anything of the sort. The comments policy on his site states, several times, that not all comments will be published. Based on the feedback I’ve been receiving from a few readers of this blog, I have no doubt that anything I submit will not be published either. Therfore, I wish to respond to this article, titled “Jesus Found Dead in His Grave” right here so that I will not risk deletion.

Overall, the tone of the article is of someone who is vindicated. At last, we can rest easy since the tomb of Jesus has been found. There was no Ressurection. Now religion can die in peace and we’ll never have to hear from it again. The grotesque picture of Christ is more than enough evidence of that.

His standpoint is evident by the use of the term “Jesus myth” following the lengthy quote that summarizes the Jesus Tomb controversy. I have no intention of restating that here; for a big picture analysis check out the Time Magazine blog on the subject.

I doubt Boles is an actual “Christ myther,” as the adherents to the school of thought that Jesus Christ was never a real, historical person are dubbed by the Tektonics group. Here, I think that Boles simply means that Jesus’ ministry is a modern myth, the way that pantheon of Greek gods is regarded today. In fact, our beliefs about Jesus are called “myth” a few times within the article. This cements for me that Boles does not believe that the stories told in the gospels are true, but a later “mythology” developed by zealous followers.

It should be noted that the discovery of Jesus’ “body” in a tomb is not the “process of shattering of the Jesus myth into Atheism [sic],” but would only serve to bolster alternate positions of how the Ascention occured. The orthodox position is that Jesus ascended body and soul into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. However, there is a school of thought that says only His soul was assumed into heaven.

I am, of course, getting ahead of the issue. There is still no reliable evidence that indicates this tomb is the tomb of Christ and His family. Boles does not appear to be a theologian nor does he have any interest in bolstering either side of that argument. His naive statement betrays that he has no idea other school of thoughts on that matter even exist. The real issue is stated here:

I understand this revolt against the sanctity of the core of Christianity is a direct response to the rise of Christian Fundamentalism in America where Believers now force their myths into mandatory mainstream acceptance: “If you don’t Believe, you’re sinner; if you don’t Repent, you’re going into the fires of hell.”

     The Fundamentalists achieve that punctilious end by poisoning the Political process with their harsh and unloving beliefs and the rest of America — the unmoved middle class who prefer soccer to sacrilege — go along with the movements of the breeze as long as it doesn’t adversely affect their lifestyle.

     With the Far Right Fundamentalists pressing their agenda into Iraq and Iran and even here on the Homeland in the Supreme Court and in the villages and the valleys, the middle class are beginning to see their precious personal rights are winnowing away in the sweaty palms of those who believe in blood and nails and those who worship the implements of death like crucifixes and spears — instead of loving each other just enough to leave people alone.

     If the myth is unwillingly perpetuated into popular culture by the True Believers — sooner or later people, good people, will rise up and fight back for the right to be left alone and to think as they wish and not as others command them to think.

     One of the weapons the mighty ordinary wield against the Myths of the Believers is the scientific process.

Yes, the real issue is that conservatives have control of government, and are attempting to impose morality upon the masses of people. We desire people to live as the Bible commands, as our Creator desires we live. However, that is not how Western culture teaches a person to behave. Here in the United States, people are taught to think for themselves, not to let anyone push them around, and anyone who wants you to behave as part of a collective whole is automatically wrong and you must fight them. It is all about individualism.

The supreme popularity of websites like MySpace is just more evidence of this. With MySpace, a person creates and personaizes a page that is all about him or herself. Is this not the pinnacle of vanity and self-asorbtion? Read more »

It is simply unbelievable what I discover when I search online for religion news.  It seems that our lovely world sinks further and further into apostasy with each passing day, and the newspapers delight in chronicling this descent.

First, our friend Emmanuel Milingo is at it again.  The ex-communicated Roman Catholic archbishop who stunned the world by his marriage in 2001, and was excommunicated in 2006 for ordaining four married men as bishops, is now in Seoul, South Korea to study the theology of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Yes, the same Sun Myung Moon who said this:

Jesus Christ is trying to follow me, my footsteps, all the way. He stayed in Paradise, because he did not marry. But I gave him marriage. Don’t you want to meet the wives of Buddha, Confucius and Muhammad? They sent letters of gratitude to me from spirit world. They pledge that even if their religion disappears, they will follow me. Can you imagine anyone in this world claiming to have married those past saints? The rings I prepared for their marriage cost a great deal per couple. Did I do that because I am crazy? Did I ask you to donate to cover that? [source]

The article reports:

Milingo has said that there are around 150,000 priests that have married across the world, and that the Vatican needs to abandon its “no-marriage” policy in order to seek reconciliation with these married church officials as well as to secure enough members for its priesthood. [source]

While I agree with the archbishop that the Pope should lift the celibacy restriction, I cannot agree with his desire to study such an insane theology.  I had thought that this man may have been the leader of a new schism, but I sincerely hope that Catholics the world over have more discernment than to follow this man.

This is interesting only for the fact that, with the mention of “Sister,” most people automatically think “Roman Catholic.”  But, in this case, I’m willing to bet that this Anglican, since I know that the Church of England and its offshoots are very individualistic in their preaching.  They teach that you should have what is best for you, and that nothing should get in the way of this happiness.

In this case, a dying man’s wish was to lose his virginity.  So the hospice he stayed at helped him hire a prostitute for sex in order to fulfill his dying wish.  The article said that ”[t]he hospice staff, after taking advice from a solicitor, the clergy and health care professionals, decided to help him.”

Primairly by lending moral support, I think.  The article wasn’t very specific.  Neither did they seem to try to talk him out of it.  In response, Sr. Frances said “I know that some people will say ‘You are a Christian foundation. What are you thinking about?’. But we are here for all faiths and none.”

Still, did you even try to talk him out of it?  C’mon.

And, finally, with news of the weird sort everywhere, it is good to know that some people can still make me laugh.  Tominthebox News Network carries several amusing (but satiric) stories, especially this one.  It made me laugh out loud.  Which wasn’t the best idea, since I’m blogging from the library today.  My computer is down. 

I posted the picture of The Potter’s Hatred, a satirical book cover designed by Ergun Caner and a parody of The Potter’s Freedom, an actual book by James White.  To be fair, I should post the picture of the Ergun Caner Talking Doll, a humorous advertisement posted by White’s supporters and a parody of Dr. Caner’s debate style.  Of the doll, White says this:

The Ergun Caner doll was humorous because it parodies the truth. You [Dr. Caner] repeat certain montras with such force and passion, but, like a wind-up doll, you don’t hear the replies and refutations, and just keep saying the same things over and over again. That’s why it was funny. Your book cover idea isn’t funny because it only shows you don’t understand the issues at hand. See, when the truth element of the parody/caricature is lost, the humor goes with it.

I find this more humorous than The Potters Hatred.  I found it even funnier when I noted on Dr. Caner’s blog, immediately after bringing this mock ad up, he used one of the doll’s statements.  Apparently, he didn’t realize that, as White points out, satire is only funny when it is true.

Of course, we are God’s creations.  As such, He is eternally free to do with us as He elects, “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Rom 9:18).  You can’t read “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I hated” and forget Jacob I have loved, as Dr. Caner is doing in his parody.

I’m not a proper Calvinist, but I think I may be getting closer.  I no longer believe that Christianity, on earth now and eternally in heaven, is a choice.  I now believe that it is a calling, and that it is not based upon our actions or choices.  But, our free will does play a role, what role I am not clear on.  Yet.

Predestination is crap–Esau made his own bed.  God didn’t choose it for him.

This image is very amusing to me. Regular readers should know that I follow James White, a Reformed Christian apologist and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, on a regular basis. He had a scheduled debate with Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Theological Seminary, regarding the validity of Calvinism (specifically, weather Limited Atonement is Biblical). It was cancelled at the last minute, and neither side seems to be able to agree on who cancelled the debate and why.

That isn’t what I’m here to discuss.

What I am here to say is that I am finally feeling the irresistable leading of the Lord to discern the truth behind the passage that was the subject of this now defunct debate: Romans 9. The portion that fueled this debate reads thus:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:22-24)

The Calvinists say this teaches predestination. The opposition, according to White, largely ignores this text, or uses a “divide and conquer” scheme for all of Romans 9. Both methods remove, ignore, or otherwise downplay God’s sovereignty in regard to salvation.

I have described myself as 4-point Calvinist, since I don’t believe that the Bible teaches a limited atonement. I do not hold to predestination, either. Nor do I believe that we are following a script God wrote before the foundation of the world; that even as I type these words, I am only echoing what He desired that I type at this moment many millenia ago.

But, if Calvinism is what God intended the Bible to teach and the way the world works, then I want to know that, too. I may not like it, but I desire what any Christian should: that God be glorified in all things. If this is how He is best glorified, then that is how it will be.

Over the next week or two, I will study Romans 9 in detail, and I will blog on my discoveries. Weather this leads to an acceptance of Calvinism or a rejection of it, that is my decision alone and I pray that God will be glorified by it.

Comments, suggestions, or links to study aids from both sides are encouraged. I am trying to approach this study as neutrally as possible. Admittedly, however, I am hoping that I will discover enough evidence to overturn predestination. The clear evidence from Scripture, however, is what will ultimately turn me from one side to the other, or keep me firmly rooted in the non-Calvinist camp.

I’m kind of excited about this, as I have been putting it off for a while. I will get started tomorrow; as I am very tired tonight.