Theological Foundations, Part 3 -- Comments on The Remonstrance

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

This article is perhaps the most straight forward and easy to deal with. Laid out for us is the General Atonement. This view is clearly declared in Scripture, contrary to the hermeneutical gymnastics often employeed by Calvinists in defense of "elite election."

Simply put, Jesus Christ died for all men, for every human, for each sin ever committed -- past, present and future. As noted above, the Remonstrants cited John 3:16 and I John 2:2 as "prooftexts." While prooftexting isn't the most sound means of Biblically supporting a position, in this case, these verses just scratch the surface.

Consider other passages which echo the Holy Spirit in His work to draw all to Christ:

• 2 Cor 5:14-15 - "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again."
• Timothy 2:3-6 - For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
• 1 Timothy 4:10 - "For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."
• Titus 2:11 (ESV) - "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people."
• 2 Peter 3:9 (KJV) - "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

The expression I've heard -- both from SOME Calvinists and MOST Arminians is, "Christ's death was sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe. More will be discussed about why not ALL are then saved -- for if I was a consistent Calvinist, I would have to be a universalist as well -- since God's will CANNOT be thwarted...Right?

One other issue that needs to be addressed. Some have called this concept of the General Atonement the "Universal Atonement," or sometimes the "Unlimited Atonement." My own conviction is that these are misleading phrases that take on negative theological connotations. That Jesus died for all DOES NOT mean that His sacrifice is thus automatically applied to all, as "Universalism" would imply. And that Jesus' death is sufficient for all does not mean that His Sacrifice is "unlimited"to the extent that all MUST then be saved.

God has made man a free moral agent, and does sovereignly enable him to choose to follow Christ or reject Him. But we'll talk about that when we get to Prevenient Grace.

So, in summary, the first two articles of the Arminian Remonstrance declare that God has an eternal purpose and predestined plan by which depraved humans can enter into His grace -- through faith in Jesus Christ. Additionally, the atonement which Christ purchased with His blood on the Cross was [and IS] for all men -- but it is only applied to those who trust the Lord, coming to Him in faith and repentance.

Blessings,

JDW

It's 2008 -- Election Year -- Why Do I Dread It So?

I will continue my commentary on The Arminian Remonstrance later tonight or tomorrow, but since it is the night of the first big political contest for the Presidential election in the Iowa Caucus, and since my own state of South Carolina will hold its primary in just a few weeks (still WAY too soon in my book), I figure it's time to talk about whom I am going to support.

I complained last year about how early the presidential campaign started, and my opinion is no different now. No sooner had the 2006 mid-term elections ended than candidates annouced their bids, started campaigning and showed up on the news every night. It's ridiculous, and the constant campaigning and never-ending lust of candidates for office will be the death of our nation... Okay, I'll reserve more comment on that until later.

As I said at least twice last year, I couldn't vote for ANY Democrat, under ANY circumstances. That hasn't changed, and barring a miracle, never will. That said, I've also remained non-commital on most of the Republican candidates. To put it bluntly, no Republican is a Conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. No candidate is a leader of the Conservative movement, and none has proven to me that they are reliable in keeping their word on a variety of issues.

If I could sorta take the candidates apart and build my own -- a composite candidate -- I'd probably take the economic policies of Ron Paul, the immigration policies of Duncan Hunter, the social positions of Mike Huckabee, the business sense of Mitt Romney, the personal heroism of John McCain, the law and order record of Rudy Guiliani and the foreign policy of Fred Thompson. Naturally, that's not an option.

So, I'll start by looking at a few of the candidates negatives -- positions that persuade me I cannot vote for certain candidates -- at least not at the primary level. First, I can't vote in the primary for a candidate who supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, supported an unconstitutional "campaign finance reform" plan, undermined the federal court choices for President Bush and supports homosexual unions or marriage -- or at least opposes a constitutional amendment clarifying what marriage is. Though I respect his service to the nation and personal courage, I can't vote for John McCain.

Rudy Guiliani is a fiscal Conservative, but a social liberal -- he supports abortion and homosexual marriage. His personal life is a mess -- his kids won't support him, he has been married three times with evidence of hanky-panky while in office.... I respect his law and order reputation and his rock solid leadership in crises and on foreign policy positions -- but I can't vote for Rudy.

Massachusetts was a mess when Mitt Romney was elected Governor. As much as was possible fiscally, and being forced to work with a democrat legislature and a liberal state beauracracy, he did a decent job. However, for a dedicated Mormon, he was quite the social liberal, at least until he decided he was going to run for President, or slightly before. Since he entered the race, he has "changed" his positions on abortion (now pro-life), illegal immigration (once favored a form of amnesty) and he championed a government run healthcare plan in his state (a position he still hasn't deserted). The "flip-flopper" award for the primary season goes to Mitt -- and until I can see some more evidence or be convinced that he isn't just saying what I want to hear, I can't vote for him in the primary.

The candidate I most dislike at this point in the campaign is going to surprise some people. As a governor, he raised taxes -- several times and in several ways -- while also almost tripling spending in his state. He supported amnesty for illegal aliens, including giving their children in-state tuition, issuing state drivers licenses to them, and providing other social services for illegals. He has criticized the war effort against Islamofacism, and has called for the closure of Gauntanamo Bay, Cuba -- a detention facility for illegal combatants in the war against our terrorist enemies -- to "gain their favor." He's suggested we ought to bring these prisoners into the United States courts and accord to them constitutional privileges. Consistent with his "merciful" stance toward those in prison, he granted pardons to over 1,000 violent criminals -- more than the previous three Governors of the state, and one of those was Bill Clinton.

But the most disquieting thing I've witnessed lately is the cynical campaign tactics he's employeed. For instance, asking in feigned innocents about his opponent Mitt Romney's Mormon faith on a radio program, "I don't know much about Mormon's -- don't they believe the devil and Jesus were brothers?" He knew better than that -- He's a Baptist preacher -- he better know what Mormon's believe! That was just a political cheap shot. And the press conference a few days ago in which he announced that he had produced a negative ad about Mitt Romney -- but that he would not run it publicly. Then -- this was as audacious as it was brilliant -- he told the press he'd show it to them just to prove it was "bad." He didn't have to run the ad -- these media stooges ran out and did it for him free, and he got to innocently claim that he didn't want it run. Please.

I admire his stands on abortion, on the marriage amendment and opposition to homosexual unions or marriage, and on his support for faith in the public square. But he is NOT a Conservative in the Reagan tradition, and I cannot support Mike Huckabee in the primary.

Then there's Ron Paul. He's a consistent libertarian -- in fact, he was the Libertarian Party candidate for President (against Ronald Reagan!) in 1988. I actually really like most of his economic policy positions, and surprisingly he is generally pro-life. He is also completely clueless regarding the conflict in which we are engaged globally. He blamed the United States and our foreign policy for 9/11, believes we should withdraw our troops immediately from all foreigh bases and fields of battle, and basically return to the isolationism of the 19th century. On that issue he is as bad or worse than several of the democrats! And on that basis alone, Ron Paul will not get my vote.

That leaves two candidates: Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Fred Thompson entered the race late -- which isn't so bad to me, since the race shouldn't have started so early in 2007 anyway. I am troubled by Fred only on a couple of issues. He was my Senator in Tennessee from 1998-2002, and yet he voted AGAINST impeachment and conviction of Bill Clinton of perjury -- the strongest and most obvious charge he faced. Clinton should have been removed from office -- and I wrote Thompson after his vote and told him he needed to return to acting, because I'd never vote for him for Senator again. Well, he took my advice and didn't run for re-election in 2002 (right...). He also hasn't demonstrated a deep and abiding drive to be the President. Some say he's "lazy," he says he doesn't LIKE campaigning. I'm of a mind to be understanding to Fred -- I'd hate campaigning too. He says he wants to be President but not to campaign -- I can forgive him that. Fred is not out of the question as a candidate I could support.

The most consistent Conservative in the race for President has been a Congressman from California for nearly 20 years. He has consistently voted and acted in the mold of Ronald Reagan -- he is economically Conservative, totally supportive of the military and our war effort, socially he is a Conservative, opposing abortion and homosexual marriage, as well as advocating the role of faith in civic life and discourse -- a prerequisite for my vote -- and his record and rhetoric match! Plus, he strongly opposes illegal immigration, and has been the ONLY Congressman to actually get a border fence constructed in his district along the border with Mexico. He may suffer from too much optimism about accomplishing anything in Washington, and he suffers in many areas from a lack of name recognition. He is also not one of the most exciting and pumped up speakers -- but, to turn a phrase -- his words are stone. He is principled. He believes. That's why, in the South Carolina Primary, I'll be casting my vote for Duncan Hunter.

I am under no illusions. It is unlikely Hunter will be the nominee -- but I am compelled to vote on principle in the primary. And Hunter is the most principled, the man I most identify with. If he does drop out of the race before South Carolina -- after all, Iowa and New Hampshire come first -- and maybe another state[?] -- then I will cast my vote for Fred Thompson. But that hasn't happened yet. And if it does, I'll have to re-evaluate the other candidates to decide whom I can vote for. But, frankly, I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. We'll see...

But for now, Go Duncan Hunter, 2008!


JDW

Theological Foundations, Part 2 -- Comments on The Remonstrance

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

The Remonstrants made clear in Article 1 that they did indeed believe God had "predestined" something. It was not, however, particular persons, but it was ANY and ALL who would come by the only means through which they could experience salvation -- Faith in Jesus Christ. This first article then could be rightly identified as the Eternal or Predestined Plan.

Whom did God choose? "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Ephesians 1:4). God does not choose us individually, but He chooses to save ALL who come to Him in Christ, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" (I Peter 1:20); as Jesus said, "for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24).

By what means is one 'chosen?' The operative means is faith. It is by faith that we are joined to Christ and enter into His grace (Ephesians 2:8-10). It's worth noting in passing that God did not plan to save His people in Christ so that they could warm pews for time and eternity. He "before ordained" that we "should walk in...good works." These works DID NOT save, and they do not KEEP anyone saved -- but they are the product of a true salvation, and a healthy, growing relationship with Jesus.

I won't be exhaustive in my commentary on this article -- I'm just skimming the surface. In summary, God "predestines" that all who receive Christ through faith, whom God had chosen and loved before the foundation of the world, would be saved. This of course begs the question, " if God does not predestine indiviudally, then does that compromise His sovereignty?" Reformation Arminians generally believe in what Dr. Robert Picirilli has called "middle knowledge." I will leave the heavy theological examination for another time, but suffice it to say that God foreknows without decreeing all that is to come. Or, let me explain "foreknowledge" with a question...

Which God is greater, the One who MUST decree all things, control all events, and determine all destinies to maintain His sovereignty, or the God who allows freedom within His creation, knows all the choices that will ever be made, along with each and every potentiality and actuality, and yet so superintends Himself in the universe that nothing, not even the rebellion and defiance of His own creatures, violates His sovereignty or thwarts His eternal will and purpose?

God has "predestined" that ALL who call upon the name of the Lord through faith are In Christ and are thus saved. This is God's eternal and unchangable purpose, His plan. God foreknows who will and who will not belief, who will and who will not persevere in faith -- but He does not, in His grace, decree from eternity who individually -- in particular -- will be saved or be damned (John 3:16-18). Those who are "In Christ" by faith are "His Elect."

JDW

Theological Foundations, Part 1 - The Remonstrance - Arminian Articles

For some time I've wanted to delve into those documents that are descriptive of my own theological convictions. That is not to say that these statements are authoritative, as is Scripture. I came by most of my doctrinal convictions honestly, with just the Bible and personal study. I've found that these statements, however, do help "flesh out" or clarify what I have accepted and taught in a broad sense, and have challenged me to think deeper and clarify the particulars of my beliefs. Hopefully, I'll be able to post additions to this particular topic over the next several weeks.

The first document I will post and comment on deals with the subject of Soteriolgy (The study of Salvation). In the late 16th and early 17th century, the Netherlands were a hotbed of theological angst and dissent. Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), a prominent pastor anf professor of theology in the Dutch Reformed Church sought to redefine or recast the teachings of John Calvin, whose original teachings had been amplified to teach, in a sense, an absolute spiritual determinism. The "Calvinists" had been the only "Reformed" theology, though it's teachers since Calvin had been deterministic in their interpretations of soteriology to varying degrees.

Arminius, while a Pastor and later a professor at the Univeristy of Leiden, developed a concept of soteriology that he believed fit into the general Reformation theological ideal, but also preserved the concept of the capacity of humans to make moral and spiritual decisions as "Free Moral Agents," and to champion the teachings of Scripture that Christ died for the whole world, for all mankind, and not merely for "the elect," as Calvinism had come to proclaim.

Arminius did not set out to destroy Calvinism, or undermine the Gospel of Grace as his critics past and present have often accused him. In fact, Arminius professed a great respect for Calvin, and read his Institutes of the Christian Religion regularly, along with Scripture. The second and third generation of Calvin's followers, however, would have none of it, and opposed Arminius and his alternative interpretation of soteriology at every turn.

When Arminius died in 1609, he left behind a number of followers within the Dutch Reformed Church [DRC] known as "Remonstrants." They came into constant conflict with Dutch Reformed Calvinists of the next decade. Finally, the DRC called a synod, held at Dordtrecht in 1618-1619. The "Synod of Dort," as it has commonly been known, was allegedly intended as an opportunity for the Remonstrants to lay out their soteriological concept for consideration. They did so in the form of the articles which I've posted below. Calvinists who controlled the DRC, however, had no interest in hearing their case, altering their views, nor sharing their own power and positions. The Synod condemned the Remonstrants as heretics in 1619.

Arminianism survived in the Remonstrant Church in Holland for sometime, though it has in recent decades degenerated into universalism and liberalism -- as have so many other denominations and sects within Christendom. Still, forms of Arminianism survived and indeed thrived in various men and movements, chiefly within some streams of Anglicanism, with John Wesly and Methodism, and within my own denominational heritage of Baptists.

It must be noted that the small congregation of English Separatists that would become known as the first Baptists came into Holland to escape English persecution around 1609, and remained there for over two years. During their time in Holland, they apparently interacted with both DRC Remontrants and with the Anabaptists (forerunners of the Mennonites, Brethren and Ahmish). This interaction had profound effects on the leaders of the English congregation -- John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. I'll discuss that a bit more in my next post on the subject. For now, please note these brief statements of the Remonstrants. I will comment on some of their statements below, and perhaps in another post shortly.

******************************

The Remonstrant Articles

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and else­where in many places.

Article 5

That those who are in­corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.

These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.

Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI: 1996.Ppages 545ff.

The following is one of 2 documents held by the Remonstrants(Arminians) as a statement of their faith in response to "reformed" teaching. This document has been condemned as heresy by the reformed churches at the Synod of Dordt, 1618-1619.

***************************

I've added bold print to emphasize the most interesting, misunderstood or mischaracterized ideas often ascribed to Arminius and Arminians in general. I'll comment on these items in the next post or two.

For now, we can draw some general principles about Arminians ans their soteriology. Arminians tend to affirm the following:

• Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation
• Salvation is possible by grace alone
• Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation
• God's election is conditional on faith in Jesus
• Jesus' atonement was for all people
• God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
• Salvation can be forfeited*, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith

I look forward to any comments.

Blessings,

JDW

My Favorite Poem

Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening

Robert Frost

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

On Blogging, On Again--Off Again, and 2008

I am returning to the classroom fulltime, teaching Religion, History, Theology and Bible courses this semester. I'm looking forward to it in a variety of ways. I know I'll be busy, but at least I won't be busy with 3 and 4 jobs -- just with two!

I know my efforts have been on-again off-again, but I hope to post a bit more consistently in the coming new year. As far as plans about coming posts, I can't say I have a bunch set in stone -- but I can pretty much gaurantee you'll see several historic commentaries on the documents which I treasure the most in declaring and explaining my own theology and doctrinal foundation. I am also certain that, with the quickly approaching Presidential Primary in South Carolina in this national election year, I'll have plenty to say rather soon on politics.

In case anyone reading this doesn't know -- Jesus loves you. Jesus died for you. Jesus was raised from the dead, and through faith you may receive the gift of eternal life in Him. Nothing that I am, have been, or will be, would matter apart from that truth. Whether or not you acknowledge this reality, it is no less as true for you. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the fullness of the Godhead veiled in flesh, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.... And apart from Him, no one is justified, and no trespass is forgiven.

In the new year, I hope, trust and pray that His light will shine through me -- that others may see Him, and that they may come to the truth of salvation.

Blessings for this coming New Year -- and I will post more soon!

JDW

Calvary Chapel and Rick Warren -- "Parting Ways"

I was unaware that Calvary Chapel had recently stopped distributing Rick Warren's written materials through their churches, and Chuck Smith has recalled one of his books that cited Warren favorably in the past. You can read about it from the perspective of an "apologist" within the Calvary Chapel movement here: http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c48_pf.shtml I find this disheartening. While I certainly don't agree with all that Warren has done in recent years, I don't believe ecclesiatical separation is warranted in this case. Who does Chuck Smith think he is. Bob Jones III? Is the Calvary Chapel movement becoming a fighting "Fundamentalist" fellowship? Was there no way for Warren and Smith to meet together behind closed doors and iron out their differences or find a way to agree to disagree agreeably? Or, is it the fact that Warren's Purpose Driven Life has outsold all of Chuck's books put together that is motivating this? It's another sad -- and unnecessary -- fracture in the Body....

Did You Wonder Where North Korea's Nukes Went?

YNetNews

Latest Update 09.12.07, 14:21

Report: Israel spots nuclear installations in Syria

Washington official says Israeli surveillance shows possible Syrian nuclear installation stocked by North Korea, Israeli Arab newspaper claims target of alleged raid last week was Syrian missile base financed by Iran.

Israel believes that North Korea has been supplying Syria and Iran with nuclear materials, a Washington defense official told the New York Times. “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” he said.

The official added that recent Israeli reconnaissance flights over Syria revealed possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials estimate might have been supplied with material from North Korea.

Meanwhile on Wednesday the Nazareth-based Israeli Arab newspaper The Assennara cited anonymous Israeli sources as saying that Israeli jets "bombed a Syrian-Iranian missile base in northern Syria that was financed by Iran... It appears that the base was completely destroyed."

According to the Times, American officials confirmed Tuesday that Israeli jets launched an airstrike inside Syria. Sources said that Israel struck at least one target in northeastern Syria, but could not provide more details.

The most likely target was, according to some administration officials, weapon caches sent by Iran to Hizbullah through Syria.

North Korea commented on the incident Tuesday, calling it a "dangerous provocation", Chinese News Agency Xinhua reported on Tuesday

"This is a very dangerous provocation little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security," a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea strongly denounces the above-said intrusion and extends full support and solidarity to the Syrian people in their just cause to defend the national security and the regional peace."

Perhaps it's my cynical nature, developed over long years of naive optimism and hoping against hope, only to witness the continual failures and perpetual depravity of human beings.

Still, when I heard the Bush Administration announce that the North Koreans were, out of the blue, surrendering their nuclear weapons, I thought they might have really found a way to gain leverage over the insane clown and his posse that run the Communist utopia we call "North Korea." Or, I thought, maybe the Communist Chinese, who hold their leash, had yanked it for some kind of sweet American economic deal. Wrong. Now the end of the NK nukes makes perfect sense -- the pieces have all fallen into place.

The insane clown leader of NK is quite brilliant. He can run circles around American Presidents evidently. Look at what he managed to do. First, he couldn't maintain a nuclear weapons facility nor build more weapons -- his people are starving by the hundred's of thousands, and the nation is so broke that declaring bankruptcy would be an improvment. Second, they are under horrendous diplomatic pressure -- even by their leash-holders the ChiComs -- to stop their rebellious and irritating role as troublemakers. Third, the resulting economic sanctions only multiplied their suffering.

So, what's the solution? Here's the neat plan Pot-bellied dictator Kim Jong-Il cooked up.

(1) Sell all nuclear secrets and supplies to oil rich Iran and their allies (Syria) -- make lots of money. (2) Declare to the gullible Western powers that you are destroying said weapons -- thus alleviating or ending economic sanctions and boycotts -- makes a lot MORE money. (3) Get the Masters in China off your back so they will send more aid. (4) Reconnect Kim to his Western suppliers of porn and liquor.

This plan is genius -- really. Kim makes tons of cash coming and going -- selling to our enemies and selling us on the "I'm going straight" lie. China is happy because NK isn't being a pain and crimping their style. The West gets snookered -- again. All is right with the Red world -- And with the Islamofascist world. The Jewish and Christian West, however, might be facing the end of their world. So much the better for Kim. So Much the better.

A Response to Leonard Pitts' Column "Six Years to Here"

Leonard Pitts column “Six Years to Here” (September 10, 2007) demonstrates clearly that there is no resolve six years after the 9/11 attacks. But he tries to make the case that the resolve, once strong, has disappeared. Many of us have too late realized that the “resolve” Pitts speaks of never really existed.

The “telling difference” Pitts refers to between 9/11/01 and 12/7/41 does in fact have to do with a “political machine” that has “duped the nation,” but it isn’t the Bush Administration. Consider that:

Six years ago, Democrats voted to empower President Bush to prosecute the War on Terrorism “anywhere the terrorists were;”

Six years ago, Democrats recognized the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, even insisting on a Congressional vote to authorize military action in 2003 though it was legally unnecessary;

Six years ago, Democrats voted overwhelmingly with Republicans to authorize the Patriot Act to help our intelligence services be able to detect enemy threats before they produced more 9/11’s;

Six years ago, Democrats joined hands with Republicans and sang “God Bless America” on the Capitol steps;

However,

In the last five years, the chief aim of Democrats has been to win back their power, not to win the War on Terrorism;

In the last five years, Democrats have revised history, claiming “there is no war on terrorism;” or that there “is no connection between Iraq and the War on Terrorism,” though they originally made the connection themselves;

In the last five years, Democrats have attempted to give constitutional rights to enemy combatants, while attempting to prosecute our military personnel in the execution of their duties to wage war;

In the last five years, Democrats have tried to undermine every step to secure our homeland from our enemies, chipping away at top secret programs or divulging them publicly to our enemies through the media;

In the last five years, one party is winning elections, while attempting to assure that our nation is losing the war, never missing a chance to undercut the War Effort for political gain and claiming to “support the troops” but not “the mission.”

Yes indeed, some of us Americans were duped. We believed that Liberals would finally recognize that there were evil people in the world who wanted to kill us, and they wanted to fight them. We believed that our survival as a nation was now more important to them than the next election. We believed we could count on their standing beside us in the fight. We believed the illusion. We bought the act.

My Dad, in the aftermath of Vietnam, once said, “Pray the Democrats aren’t on your side in the next real war.” His words were prophetic.

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

On Mutants, Medical Ethics and Reality

September 6, 2007 -- BRITAIN'S fertility regulator decided in principle today to allow scientists to create human-animal hybrid embryos for research.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) gave the go-ahead to controversial plans to create “cytoplasmic” embryos, which merge human cells with eggs from animals such as cattle.

Applications to proceed from researchers at Newcastle University in northeast England and King's College London can now be appraised by a licence committee in November.

Scientists argue such research could pave the way for therapies for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

An HFEA consultation found that people were “at ease” with the proposals once the possible implications had been explained.....

The...embryos are therefore mostly human, with a small animal component.

Stem cells, which can grow into different kinds of tissue, are then formed.

The embryos could give researchers a large supply of stem cells to work with.

Scientists have had to rely on human eggs left over from fertility treatment, which are in short supply and often poor quality.

When I first heard this story, I asked myself the question, 'are they talking about England, or the Island of Dr. Moreau?'

That was a great -- and horrifying -- movie of my childhood starting Burt Lancaster as the "evil Doctor" who spliced the genes -- or genetically engineered -- crosses between men and animals. Without giving the end away, lets just say his experiments went awry as men became more like animals, and the poor animals became more like men. It was not only a movie nightmare, it was a moral nightmare.

So to will be these experiments approved by the British "fertility regulator" -- as if having a government office by that title isn't already sinister enough. Ostensibly, these "scientists" are hoping to "create" just enough life in these embryo's to engineer cures for diseases, the long promised miracle cures that they can never quite seem to perfect.

Of course, medical science and technology have made great strides in curing diseases and aiding those who suffer from various illnesses. Until recent decades, however, Medicine had a longstanding tradition all the way back to the Hippocratic Oath to "first, do no harm." Now, in the name of progress, with a promise of cures to the desparate and the frightened, they have jettisoned such moral notions. What could be more noble than surrendering your morality on your way to becoming a god?

The implications of these "experiments" go far deeper than the arrogance of "scientists" or the devaluing of human life. How long before human embryos become valuable commodities for sale to the highest bidder, and abortion becomes the means by which these "embryo's" are harvested for "special research?" Oops, some of that is already happening. How long before some "Dr. Moreau" decides that a Man-Cow hybrid, or Man-Dog, or Woman-Cat, or another cross-species amalgamation could prove lucrative as his own creation, or perhaps helpful as a servant in various mundane chores and tasks which other "full breed" humans just won't do?

These scientists are about to open a pandora's box as did Dr. Moreau on his fictional island. The results at the very least will further muddle the unique role of humans in the Creation, as well as cheapen the value of human lives. And perhaps worst of all, from the perspective of an animal lover, it would infuse those poor instictually driven beasts with something that to now has only belonged to humanity -- a fallen nature, a soul bent toward evil. If such a creature could have a soul at all.

The dangers are immense in this kind of foolish pursuit. It will become another "Tower of Babel" which must be struck down, for the sake of the very men who build it. For if it is not, our very noble "creations" could become the instruments of our destruction.

On Gandalf, God's Word and Reality

"British Actor Ian McKellen who has used the mega-stardom he achieved playing Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings films to promote homosexuality, has admitted to ripping out pages of hotel bibles that refer to homosexuality.

In an August 10 interview on New Zealand's TV1 Close Up program McKellen was confronted by the interviewer questioning the truth of the rumour "He's the one, that when he stays in hotels rips the part of the bible out that criticizes homosexuality."

"Yes it is true," responded McKellen it's even tones. "Its Leviticus 18:22 that I object to, or is it 22:18, I've always got to look it up. Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination. And they, I think the punishment for an abomination was being stoned to death," he said.

McKellen added, "I think it's rather obscene and pornographic, and shouldn't be there, so I remove it."

Asked how many bibles he has vandalized, McKellen replied, "I have no idea, but other people do it as well, people send me evidence that they have been removing that."

McKellen has been vandalizing bibles in the same fashion for at least a few years...."

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).

Gandalf has spoken. I've never been a Tolkein fan, and I didn't see any of the Lord of the Rings movies. C.S. Lewis and Narnia are more my speed. I'd heard before the movies were released, however, that Ian McKellan was homosexual, and it struck me as fascinating and quite ironic that so outspoken an individual about his "alternative" sexual proclivities could play such a moral and prominent character in a movie by a man who clearly saw his lifestyle as aberrant and unnatural. Tolkein would not have been pleased.

That's neither here nor there though. That McKellan has destroyed multiple copies of the Scriptures -- probably placed there by good people through the ministry of the Gideons -- is important though. That he defaces something not belonging to him, and in which he doesn't even believe, is telling. What has he to fear from it? It's not like a bunch of Bible-toters are coming to lynch him or burn him at the stake. It's just words on a page -- if his view of the world is right.

This story brought to mind an interesting Old Testament story, found in Jeremiah 36:14-16;20-21;23-24;27,28,30,31. I commend it to your reading -- and to Mr. McKellan's:

"Therefore all the princes sent Jehudi the son of Nethaniah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Cushi, unto Baruch, saying, Take in thine hand the roll wherein thou hast read in the ears of the people, and come. So Baruch the son of Neriah took the roll in his hand, and came unto them.

And they said unto him, Sit down now, and read it in our ears. So Baruch read [it] in their ears.

Now it came to pass, when they had heard all the words, they were afraid both one and other, and said unto Baruch, We will surely tell the king of all these words....

And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king.

So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king.

And it came to pass, [that] when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast [it] into the fire that [was] on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that [was] on the hearth.

Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, [neither] the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words....

Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,

Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned....

Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.

And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not."

Ian McKellan should know that Voltaire declared during his lifetime the Bible would cease to be of interest and Christianity would die out. One hundred years later, Voltaire was in the ground and Bibles were being printed on his presses, in his former home. Talented people, brilliant minds, have come and gone, but the Bible continues on.

King Jehoiakim took an penknife and cut out the parts of the Bible he didn't like, just as did Mr. McKellan. He burned it. Thought it was "obsence" and "pornographic" I imagine. Jehoakim was killed by the Babylonians a few years later. But the Words of God were fulfilled.

You may cut up the words on the page, Mr. McKellan, but that doesn't negate their truth, nor will it keep them from coming to pass.

On Mother Teresa, Doubts and Reality

I'm not the judge of any man -- or woman. That's not my job. I also never met Mother Teresa, nor did I know much more than the of basics of her story -- just like everyone else that watched the news while she was alive, or just following her death.

That little nun, from my perspective, however, lived a more truly Christian life than many leaders in large churches and denominations that I DO know. Yet, recently, the news media has trumpeted the fact that Mother Teresa, great and faithful Christian humanitarian, struggled with doubt and despair much of her life as a devout nun. The agenda of the media, of course, is to discredit faith -- the Christian faith in particular. For such a perceived champion of that faith to suffer doubt, to them, accomplishes their [evil] mission.

Maybe believers should "reframe" this issue, though. A proper understanding of Mother Teresa's context might help. This woman who had dedicated her entire life to the aid and help of the poorest and most disenfranchised in Hindu India, saw thousands, perhaps millions over her lifetime, of suffering, sick, starving outcasts. She nursed them to health in some cases, and watched them die in many others. She often held their hands, or hugged them to her, as they drew their last breaths. Her world was filled with hard realities: with filth, anguish, failure, demonism and inhumanity.

So, why shouldn't she see God in all that, right? God must have been all over that place! He hangs around in the presence of the poor and suffering, after all.....right?

You know, Mother Teresa may not have truly been a believer. I (nor anyone else) knows the heart of another at its core. And, obviously, there are always issues of the nature of Catholic doctrine and dogma. Catholic tradition can obscure Biblical truth from many Catholics. No doubt about that (I know, spoken like a true Protestant).

But I lean toward another idea of why Mother Teresa was plagued by doubts and despair. Remember all the suffering and death Mother Teresa saw? All the horrendous and deplorable conditions she ministered in? All the hordes of pitiful humanity for whom she attempted to care? Mother Teresa seemed never to see Jesus there, in her words. "Where is He," she would ask.

He was there. All the time, and Mother Teresa was either blinded to His presence -- or too humble to be aware of it. Jesus was there...In Mother Teresa. Even when she felt the most despair, as though Jesus had deserted her -- to the point that she cried out, "if there be a God forgive me!" -- Mother Teresa never quit. She kept ministering, giving, loving, feeding... That was not the weak, poor nun wandering the streets of Calcutta. It was Jesus -- in her. Through her? It was Jesus.

I don't pretend to know Mother Teresa's spiritual condition. I do know a picture of what it means to suffer for Christ. Mother Teresa is such a picture. She suffered for others. She was in anguish spiritually as she interceded on behalf of those souls in the gutters of Calcutta. Her spirit was impoverished that those she touched might have a chance to experience God's riches in Christ Jesus.

No, I don't know Mother Teresa's eternity, but I hope and pray that I can go to my eternity and face God having been a fraction of the example of Christian virtue that she was. Doubt like hers doesn't prove lack of faith -- persistence in the face of such doubt in fact proves the truth of faith. And in light of that, Mother Teresa may just be the "patron saint" of the doubting and despairing.

On Prayer, John Edwards, and Reality

JOHN EDWARDS: "I have prayed most of my life; pray daily now. He's (God) enormously important to me.

But the answer to the question is: No, I don't – I prayed before my 16-year-old son died; I prayed before Elizabeth was diagnosed with cancer. I think there are some things that are beyond our control.

And I think it is enormously important to look to God — and, in my case, Christ — for guidance and for wisdom. But I don't think you can prevent bad things from happening through prayer."

In a recent Democrat Party debate, the question was asked “Do you believe in a personal God?” and “Do you believe that prayer changes things?”

I have no problem disagreeing with John Edwards on any number of levels. And at first blush, it might seem there are plenty of things to criticize in his statement that prayer can’t “prevent bad things from happening.” Isn’t God able to do anything? Isn’t God all powerful? Doesn’t Scripture say if we ask anything in Jesus’ name, that it will be done? How could Edwards have said that?

It’s true, all that is in the Bible – though it’s often misunderstood or misapplied. And I really hate this, but I generally find myself agreeing with John Edwards on this one.

We live in a society of instant gratification today. We live in a culture of materialism, pleasure, self-centeredness and a delusional belief that we can somehow avoid life’s hardships. This has certainly bled over into our religious thinking. The clearest avenue of this thinking is the “Word of Faith” movement, a strain of Charismatic (Neo-Pentecostalism) Protestantism that teaches “name it and claim it.” You know the examples – “In the name of Jesus, I claim a new Mercedes Benz!” “In the name of Jesus, I believe God for a million dollars.” The mere fact that not everyone who makes these “claims” at some point becomes disillusioned is the most benign result of this error.

What if you’ve got a parent whose child in dying of cancer, and on the deathbed they cry out to God, “In the name of Jesus, my child is healed!”

Let me hasten to add that I believe God can and DOES intervene in miraculous ways at times. I’ve seen diseases healed, the sick made whole. That God CAN do it is not the issue. That we can demand God do it – THAT is the issue. In this age of “have it now the way I want it” faith consigns God to the status of Cosmic Bellhop. God is our gopher, He is our errand-boy, our lives are about our joy, our satisfaction, our comfort….

But sometimes, God in His Sovereign knowledge and will knows more than we do, sees more than we can comprehend, and allows things that we would consider cruel, evil, painful, and at odds with His very nature of Love.

Even Jesus Himself said, “for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45b). Are we so righteous that we can somehow avoid the rain that falls on everyone else? Are we so exalted above other men that we cannot be touched by the pain of real human life? And if we do suffer tragedies, losses, grief and other trials, does that mean somehow that we haven’t the faith that would move God to “spring us?”

The Apostle Paul wrote in Hebrews about many of the faithful saints who had followed God in prior ages. Many were miraculously delivered, empowered and emboldened to achieve victory, to conquer, to stand against all the fury of Satan and his minions. But many others fell to the swords, lived miserably, and died horribly. Were those who were victorious in the world any more deserving or faithful than those who suffered so greatly? Read this passage:

And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and [of] Barak, and [of] Samson, and [of] Jephthae; [of] David also, and Samuel, and [of] the prophets:

Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

And others had trial of [cruel] mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:

They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

(Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and [in] mountains, and [in] dens and caves of the earth.

And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect (Hebrews 11:32-40).

SOME “through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises stopped the mouths of lions…OTHERS had trial of [cruel] mocking and scourging…Bonds of imprisonment…were stoned…sawn asunder, tempted, slain…. And these ALL, having obtained a GOOD REPORT through FAITH…”

Suffering doesn’t necessarily imply failure or lack of faith. Sometimes, it’s quite the contrary.

Several years ago I went through the toughest period of my life. During that time, I thought about changing my name to Murphy because I was living by his law every day. I prayed more than I ever had before. I pleaded with God to rectify the situation, to intercede on my behalf, to rescue me, to protect me, to deliver me from my enemies… From my perspective then, He did not.

A year or so ago, God revealed to me that during that time, what I could do in those circumstances was not important to Him – but that what He could do IN ME through those circumstances WAS important to Him. I wasn’t God’s gift to anything – those circumstances were His gift to me, to make me what He wants, to conform me to His image.

I’ve never quite been able to thank God for those problems, but I know now that they had a purpose in His plan. John Edwards has a point on this score – prayer CAN bring miracles, but most often it doesn’t. Instead, it serves to prepare us for the consequences of tragedies and failures, and becomes the base for the recovery that we can enjoy in Him. In short, prayer is more about changing ME than about changing my circumstances.

Pray. Believe. Then accept that God knows best, because He knows all – and move on from there in His strength. After all, His strength is ALL we really have.

A Visit To Mepkin Abbey

On Tuesday, August 14th, while I was on vacation in Charleston, SC, I rode out to Mepkin Abbey in the coutryside along the Cooper River near Moncks Corner. And, when I say "countryside," I MEAN countryside. If the Trappist Brothers had wanted to find a more remote place on the Eastern Seaboard, they would have been hard pressed.

I went to Mepkin for a number of reasons. First, as a teacher of religion, I wanted to acquaint myself with the monastic life of Catholic monks. Second, the monastic life of solitude has always had an appeal to me. Third, I'd never been there in the more than 12 years I've lived in SC.

When I initially drove in, down a long lane under a canopy of moss covered, 250 year old Oak trees, I saw a little fawn off to my left, loping slowly into the nearby woods. Wow. Not that I think that was a sign from God, but the natural beauty and peace of the landscape certainly brought me a feeling of comfort and rest.

I had the opportunity to tour some of the 3,200 acres that has belonged to the Cistertian order since it was given to them by Henry and Clare Booth Luce in 1949. Of course, much of the property is reserved for the Monks only and is off limits. But the Docent was very open and answered a plethora of questions from the dozen or so of us in the tour party. The tour lasted about an hour, and we had the opportunity to attend the noon prayer service in the Abbey Church -- one of the seven times of prayer the monks observe daily between their 3 AM rising and their 8 PM bedtime. Of course, we were seated in a small gallery to observe, not participate. There were, however, both male and female "retreatants" there who did participate. They stay from a few days to a period of months in some cases, and they don't have to be Catholics -- though to be a monk, of course, one DOES have to be Catholic.

I picked up some great books and CD's at the small Abbey bookstore. A couple of small books by the late Thomas Merton, one of my favorite devotional writers. I also picked up an official copy of The Rule of St. Benedict. Good stuff, and the basis upon which these monks base almost every practice of their lifestyle. I also picked up a CD of Gregorian Chants and a couple of CD's of Russian Orthodox choirs doing the traditional deep, rich acapella vocals they are so well known for. I don't understand a word. I do sense the power.

Which brings me to the questions that my time at Mepkin Abbey left me with. The most personal question that occurred to me was, though I would love the solitude of a life in Mepkin, could I deal with the relative isolation from the outside world? And, with all the silence and solitude, would the absence of the busyness of my life drive me insane in about 10 minutes? And here's a big issue for me -- could I stand the daily grind -- rising at 3 AM, praying at the same time, reciting the same prayers and chants seven times a day, to bed before dark in the summer at 8 PM...? Could I be that disciplined?

I suppose those who feel called to that lifestyle are enabled to live that life. I can't imagine myself being able to do it. Still, there is that lure, that appeal that such a peaceful and prayerful unhindered communion with God offers....

I'm not a Catholic. I haven't converted. I am still as Protestant as I ever was. Sometimes though, I think Protestants "threw out the baby with the bathwater." Protestants have largely forgotten much of the history of the church -- especially prior to the Reformation. We've also thrown out much of the devotional character and practice that eventually gave birth to Protestantism -- or at least provided the groundwork. I got in touch with some of that Spirit at Mepkin Abbey -- and for that I am thankful and much better off -- at least for a time.

A Visit To Seacoast Church

This past Sunday, August 12, I had the opportunity to attend Seacoast Church in Mt. Pleasant, SC.

Seacoast is a multi-campus Evangelical Church, affiliated with the Association of Related Churches [ARC]. They are generally "non-denominational," though ARC looks more and more like a denomination if you read their literature. One can say, however, that ARC is making an impact -- a nice change compared to the vast majority of churches these days.

I didn't know it, but Greg Surratt, founder of Seacoast Church some 20 years ago, and still the presiding "Pastor" of the multiple campuses in three states (SC, NC, GA) was speaking that morning. He preached a very good message in "Noah's Ark," from the first verses of Genesis 6.

I was pleasantly surprised by his direct teaching of the Scripture as truth, and his willingness to explore different interpretations of the text while upholding its inspiration and accuracy. With the so-called "generous orthodoxy" of our days in the "emerging church," and the compromise from many quarters in what still passes for "evangelicalism," Surratt's dedication to orthodoxy was refreshing and reassuring.

I went to the 8 AM service, which was well attended -- over 200 maybe? I'm not a good judge of crowd size... There were two more services - one at 9:30 and another at 11 AM. The early service was contemporary, but stripped down, held in the chapel, acoustic music. At the end of the message, there was a time of "invitation" or dedication, followed by a somewhat "casual" observance of Communion. I didn't get to ask questions, but I wonder if they observe Communion after every service...? NOT that there's anything wrong with that!

When I got back to my vacation condo and was reading the Sunday paper, lo and behold, an article about Seacoast Church. Last week, it was named among the top 10 most effective/influential churches in America. From my visit to their service, and the message of Greg Surratt, I can see why.

My prayer is that they stay founded on the truth and focused of the mission. I wish them blessings and success.

JDW