A Brief Foray into Southern Baptist Convention Politics

Anyone who knows me, knows that I deplore "denominational politics." In fact, I deplore "church politics" of any kind. It all looks like the process of sausage making behind the scenes. After my long experiences with the SBC back in my College days during the heat of the "Conservative Resurgence," and then for 17 years among two different Free Will Baptist denominations, I've had my fill of any kind of politics in the name of religion. Believe me, if Free Will Baptists can't break you of the lust for popularity and position, nothing will -- and you might even fit in perfectly there.

But enough about that. This isn't about Free Will Baptists, it's about the Southern Baptist Convention. Specifically, it's about this year's SBC Presidential election. As a member of an SBC Church, I suppose I have an interest in who becomes the Convention President. Normally, it wouldn't make that much of a difference to me. After all, Southern Baptists affirm local church autonomy (thank God), and nobody can tell a local church what to do -- at least theoretically.

This year, however, I have a keen interest in the outcome of the SBC Presidential election. Not for "political reasons," but for personal. Among the candidates will be a man I have been acqauinted with since 1985, when I was a College newspaper columnist covering the North Carolina Baptist State Convention in Charlotte. It was then that I first heard Dr. Johnny Hunt speak, and briefly met him. You might remember some had considered nominating Dr. Hunt for SBC President before. Lat year, he withdrew his name. This year, however, I understand he has consented to run.

I include the following article from Baptist Press announcing Hunt's candidacy. Following that, I'd like to share a little about what I know personally about the man and ministry of Dr. Johnny Hunt.

Johnny Hunt to be SBC president nominee

Posted on May 6, 2008 by J. Gerald Harris

WOODSTOCK, Ga. (BP)--Johnny M. Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Ga., will be nominated for president of the Southern Baptist Convention during the SBC's June 10-11 annual meeting in Indianapolis, Ted Traylor, pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, Fla., announced May 6.

Hunt is among four announced nominees for the post, joining Frank Cox, pastor of North Metro Baptist Church, Lawrenceville, Ga.; William L. (Bill) Wagner, a former Southern Baptist missionary and seminary professor and current president of Olivet University International in San Francisco; and former International Mission Board missionary Avery Willis.

A native of North Carolina, Hunt has been pastor of the Woodstock church since December 1986. During his first year as pastor, the church baptized 318 people and had 268 additions by statement and letter. Since he arrived, the church has seen average Sunday school attendance grow from 275 to 4,705, according to the 2007 Annual Church Profile.

In the 21 years of Hunt's pastorate, church membership has increased from 1,027 to 16,495. Current average church worship attendance is 6,180.

In 1980, while attending Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Hunt served as pastor of Falls (N.C.) Baptist Church, which led North Carolina Baptists in Sunday school growth. During his pastorate, Longleaf Baptist Church in Wilmington, N.C., also led the Baptist state convention in baptisms for three consecutive years beginning in 1983.

FBC Woodstock relocated to an 82-acre site in the fall of 2004. The $54 million sanctuary, which seats 7,500, hosts two morning worship services.

Since 1987, the congregation has sent out more than 135 missionaries and started more than 78 churches. The congregation has developed ministries such as the "City of Refuge," which provides an environment that enables hurting pastors and their families to find hope and healing.

Traylor said his "deep concern about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention" led him to want to nominate Hunt.

"I just believe the Lord's raised him up to do it," Traylor told Baptist Press. "I believe he's a man to do it for our future. I don't know of a greater Acts 1:8 church in all of our convention than First Woodstock."

"Some of us have been thinking about this [nominating Hunt] for 12 to 15 years," Traylor told Georgia's Christian Index newspaper. "I don't think he has given any thought to this until recently, but the last time I discussed it with him, I saw a flicker in his eyes, and I believe God sparked a flame in his soul for this."

Traylor listed three reasons that prompted him to announce his intention to nominate Hunt:

1) "Hunt has led First Baptist Woodstock to become a great, exemplary Acts 1:8 church in terms of missions giving and missions going.

2) "He has given evidence of a great interest and concern for the next generation of young pastors and for the millennial generation in general. No one has a better pastoral link to young ministers than Johnny Hunt, as evidenced through Woodstock's Barnabas-Timothy Conferences.

3) "I believe Southern Baptists are looking for a future that is marked by unity, not division. Johnny Hunt has one fight in him and that is the good fight of faith. He is a leader who can forge a hopeful future that is centered around the Gospel and connected to the local church."

Hunt is a graduate of Gardner-Webb College in Boiling Springs, N.C., where he was voted ministerial student of the year in 1979. He earned a master of divinity degree from Southeastern Seminary in 1981. The Chair of Church Growth at Southeastern was named for Hunt in 1997.

Hunt is married to the former Janet Allen of Wilmington, N.C. The couple has two daughters and four grandchildren.

Information from the 2007 Annual Church Profile for First Baptist Woodstock lists 462 baptisms and primary worship service attendance of 6,180. The congregation gave $393,798, or 2.2 percent, through the Cooperative Program from total undesignated receipts of $17,807,317. According to the ACP, the church's total mission expenditures were $3,304,608, with $175,000 given for the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions. The ACP did not record the amount the church gave for the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions.

My View:

I first met Dr. Johnny Hunt when he was Pastor of Long Leaf Baptist Church in Wilmington, NC, in 1985. They had led the state in baptism’s two straight years, and he spoke for only five minutes from the convention platform. I was a journalism student at Wingate College (now University) at the time, and I knew I had to meet this man! He was indeed on fire!

I followed his ministry as he moved to Woodstock in 1986, and as his church has exploded over the past two decades. I’ve visited his church on several ocassions, attended several conferences there, and I’ve benefitted greatly from the Timothy-Barnabas Pastor’s school I attended in 2001.

I often listen to his messages. They are always exegetically sound, never boring, and with the ultimate priority of winning souls and equipping the saints for the work of ministry. The most impressive thing about Johnny Hunt, however, is that he’s never gotten over being saved.

I once heard him say, “I’m glad I’m saved, and I never got over it!” That characteristic is sorely lacking in so many Christian lives today, replaced by cynicism and doubt — even, and perhaps especially, in our pulpits.

I’ve no doubt that God’s hand is on Dr. Johnny Hunt. I’m glad he has been my friend — as he has been to so many others in ministry throughout the years. I can say without reservation that Johnny will be an anointed and humble leader of the SBC, should he be chosen for the task.

I respect the other candidates for President. I don't know them so I will refrain from speaking about their various views, theological or methodological. I DO know Johnny Hunt. And I whole heartedly endorse his candidacy for President of the SBC. that and a $5 bill will get you a coffee at Starbucks, but for what it's worth... :-)

Prayerfully,

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

On Ahmadinejad, Israel, and Getting a Clue

So, is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad engaging in macho hyperbole, or is he telling us exactly what he plans?

2005 "World Without Zionism" Conference (October 26, 2005:

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world" (Week in Review - The New York Times, 10/30/2005).

"Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps... Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, if the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe — like in Germany, Austria or other countries — to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it" (BBC, Reuters, Forbes, 12/08/2005).

"They [Israel] have invented a myth that Jews were massacred [The Holocaust] and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (it) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet. If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel? Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?" (CNN.com, 12/14/2005).

"Now, in the West, insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime. We ask, why do you insult the prophet? The response is that it is a matter of freedom, while in fact, they are hostages of the Zionists" (Payvand.com, 02/06/2006).

"Israel can ultimately not continue its existence...Anti-Semitism in Europe has forced Jews to leave their countries of origin, but what they did instead was occupy a country which is not theirs but that of Palestinians...We are sorry for any human being killed in the two world wars. We respect Moses as we respect Jesus, but it is just unacceptable that the Palestinians should suffer from the aftermath" (Expactica, 04/24/2006).

"Israel must be wiped off the map" (oft repeated - WPRI/Fox Providence; NY Times 06/04/2006; Reuters 05/21/2006).

"Hitler sought pretexts to attack other nations...The Zionist regime is seeking baseless pretexts to invade Islamic countries and right now it is justifying its attacks with groundless excuses" (Alertnet.org, 07/15/2006).

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented...The Zionist regime is used to reach this objective [as a US proxy]. The sole existence of this regime is for invasion and attack."" (Counterpunch, 08/28/2006).

"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation... [Israel] "has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese" (Yahoo, Times Online, 05/08/2008).

"The Zionist regime is dying...The criminals imagine that by holding celebrations ... they can save the Zionist regime from death....They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy [it]" (Yahoo, 05/14/2008).

The last time a world "leader" spelled out his plans so clearly was in in a book entitled Mein Kampf. There are many in the West with the same Neville Chamberlain mentality. They believe we can go back to the "September 10th" mindset. They believe we can "talk" to people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And I'm quite sure ole' Mahmoud will do nothing to dissuade their folly -- right up until the moment our cities start to vaporize.

Wise Saying.... Kierkegaard on Self Revelation and Love

I have seen men in real life who so long deceived others that at last their true nature could not reveal itself . . . . He who cannot reveal himself cannot love, and he who cannot love is the most unhappy man of all. Søren Kierkegaard

Growing Accustomed to Silence

SILENCE

by Thomas Merton

When I speak, it is a demand that others remain silent so I alone may be heard. When I am silent, I hear my true self and reach my soul. When I am silent, I hear with a caring heart. Silence teaches us to know reality by respecting it where words have defiled it. If our life is poured out in useless words, we will never hear anything because we have said everything before we had anything to say. . . . .

The older I grow, the more at home I am with silence. Some would say it's because I'm running out of my youthful energy. that's fair -- I realize at 42 that I'm not quite the same as I was at 24! Others might say that as I have grown older, I've grown wiser. Not many would say that, mind you, but some would. No, I don't believe that either. Still others might say I've run out of things to say. May it never be!

I think I've become more enamored of silence in recent years because, as Merton's quote indicates above, "Silence teaches us to know reality by respecting it where words have defiled it." Indeed, in moments of stillness, I call to mind the words of the Prophet Habakkuk, "But the LORD [is] in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him" (2:20). In silence, we "know reality," in that we know God. He is the essence of all reality.

I know -- that sounds too "mystical." I don't have an aversion to the "mystical" because Scripture discusses numerous "mysteries" about the Person, power and presence of God. How can He - in His glory, The Almighty - be anything other than mysterious to us who are the limited, the finite, the depraved? Were it not for the favor of His revelation in Holy Writ, we would not "know" Him -- or at least the basic facts about Him.

Silence, however, makes real to us His Revelation. Not that His Revelation is incomplete -- not at all! His Word reveals ALL we need -- but that's the point -- WE NEED. His revelation is perfect -- our apprehension of His Revelation, and of His very Being, is lacking. It is possible for a believer to walk throughout life, knowing the facts, embracing the Gospel, finding freedom, yet never internalizing the reality and relationship possible with God.

This "Knowledge" is not found in their "many words" of prayer. Too often disciples believe prayer is all about US talking, asking, seeking, knocking, begging, pleading, petitioning, supplicating... No question, those are all elements of Prayer that believers should and must employ at times. But the "many words" often employed in prayer often preclude something deeper, which is the Divine desire of God Himself to be REAL to us. Our words defile that holy moment when God wants nothing more than to be real to us -- to "come in and sup" with us.

Prayer has come to encompass far more to me than "talking to God." As imperative as that is, Prayer is sometimes Silence. Silence before His throne, Silence within His Temple, in my secret place, hidden in Him. Silence there is comfortable, and rest is easy. And there, God doesn't mind if you fall asleep. He even watches over you with a joy eternal, and grants a heavenly peace.

On Iraq's WMD, Syria, and the Al Qaeda Connection

Liberals who don't want to face reality and enjoy living in a fantasy world of peace, love, and government funded utopianism, constantly ask the same question: "Did Bush Lie about Iraq's WMD?" And the inevitable follow-up question: "So, if there were WMD, where are thy? Huh? HUH?!?" I will, against my better judgment try to answer this question -- even though the questioners really have no desire to hear....

MY ANSWER:

No one knows where the WMD are with certainty -- at least no one that will admit it publically. We DO know they were there. Tens of thousands of dead Kurds and Shi'ites -- gassed to death without mercy -- are ample evidence of that. One also has to ask -- why, in the weeks before our invasion in 2003, there were multiple convoys hauling massive amounts of apparent military hardware (and cash) into Syria? [b]Answer[/b]:

06 January, 2004 - "Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept.... Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family. In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation. Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer" (Sources: Reuters, Washington Post, FoxNews) NOTE: The articles were inexplicably removed from Reuters and the Washington Post websites, but it remains at FoxNews... Huh, who'da thunk that!?

And, another question -- How is it that no one has paid attention to THIS story about WMD's, al Qaeda, and Syria? [b]Answer[/b]:

Jordan says major al Qaeda plot disrupted

Authorities: Chemical cloud would have been released in Amman

Monday, April 26, 2004 Posted: 3:54 PM EDT (1954 GMT)

AMMAN, Jordan (CNN) -- Jordanian authorities said Monday they have broken up an alleged al Qaeda plot that would have unleashed a deadly cloud of chemicals in the heart of Jordan's capital, Amman.

The plot would have been more deadly than anything al Qaeda has done before, including the September 11 attacks, according to the Jordanian government.

Among the alleged targets were the U.S. Embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office and the headquarters of Jordanian intelligence.

U.S. intelligence officials expressed caution about whether the chemicals captured by Jordanian authorities were intended to create a "toxic cloud" chemical weapon, but they said the large quantities involved were at a minimum intended to create "massive explosions."

Officials said there is debate within the CIA and other U.S. agencies over whether the plotters were planning to kill innocent people using toxic chemicals.

At issue is the presence of a large quantity of sulfuric acid among the tons of chemicals seized by Jordanian authorities. Sulfuric acid can be used as a blister agent, but it more commonly can increase the size of conventional explosions, according to U.S. officials.

Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence officials called the capture of tons of chemicals that together could create several large conventional explosions "a big deal."

The plot was within days of being carried out, Jordanian officials said, when security forces broke it up April 20.

In a nighttime raid in Amman, Jordanian security forces moved in on the terrorist cell. After the shooting stopped, four men were dead. Jordanian authorities said. They said at least three others were arrested, including Azmi Jayyousi, the cell's suspected ringleader, whom Jordanian intelligence alleges was responsible for planning and recruiting.

On a confession shown on state-run Jordanian television, Jayyousi said he took orders from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a suspected terrorist leader who has been linked to al Qaeda and whom U.S. officials have said is behind some attacks in Iraq.

"I took explosives courses, poisons high level, then I pledged allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to obey him without any questioning," Jayyousi said.

Jordanian intelligence suspects Jayyousi returned from Iraq in January after a meeting with al-Zarqawi in which they allegedly plotted to hit the three targets in Amman.

In a series of raids, the Jordanians said, they seized 20 tons of chemicals and numerous explosives. Also seized were three trucks equipped with specially modified plows, apparently designed to crash through security barricades.

The first alleged target was the Jordanian intelligence headquarters. The alleged blast was intended to be a big one.

"According to my experience as an explosives expert, the whole of the Intelligence Department will be destroyed, and nothing of it will remain, nor anything surrounding it," Jayyousi said.

Details of the alleged plot were shown Monday on Jordanian television, including graphics of how the cell apparently intended to carry out the attack.

In an videotape shown on Jordanian TV, Hussein Sharif said Jayyousi recruited him as a suicide bomber.

"The aim, Azmi told me, was to execute an operation to strike Jordan and the Hashemite Royal family, a war against the crusaders and infidels," Sharif said. "Azmi told me that this will be the first chemical attack that al Qaeda will execute."

Jordanian authorities said the attack would have mixed a combination of 71 lethal chemicals, which they said has never been done before, including blistering agents to cause third-degree burns, nerve gas and choking agents.

A Jordanian government scientist said the plot had been carefully worked out, with just the right amount of explosives to spread the deadly cloud without diminishing the effects of the chemicals. The blast would not burn up the poisonous chemicals but instead produce a toxic cloud, the scientist said, possibly spreading for a mile, maybe more.

The Jordanian intelligence buildings are within a mile of a large medical center, a shopping mall and a residential area.

"And there is no one combination of antidote to treat nerve agent, choking agent and blistering agent," the scientist said.

Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, has been accused of plotting chemical attacks before, and authorities said it would not be his first attempt to strike Jordan.

In 2000, a Jordanian court charged him in absentia with planning to blow up a hotel and attack tourist destinations.

U.S. officials have said he was behind the 2002 assassination of American diplomat Lawrence Foley, who was gunned down outside his home in Amman.

According to the televised confessions, $170,000 came from Zarqawi via messengers from Syria.

In last week's raid, Jordanian forces seized cash, bomb-making equipment and weapons, investigators said.

CNN was not allowed access to any of those arrested. But the videotaped confessions offer a rare glimpse inside an alleged terrorist operation.

The Jordanian government said the videotapes were made with the full cooperation of the suspects and their attorneys.

Source: [size=200][b]CNN[/b][/size]'s John Vause, Henry Schuster and David Ensor contributed to this report.

Additionally: "Have some of [b]Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction[/b] (wmd) been [b]found in Jordan[/b]?

Around the first of April this year, the Jordanian authorities captured an al-Qaeda terrorist cell that worked out of Jordan. The terrorists had about 20 tons of chemicals, including poison gas! That’s right, 20 tons of chemicals—or weapons of mass destruction.

The al-Qaeda leader in Jordan has confessed that they planned to kill 80,000 Jordanians with those chemicals.

King Abdullah ii of Jordan told the San Francisco Chronicle that “It was a major, major operation. … It would have decapitated the government” (April 17). Yes indeed—“a major, major operation.” This is chemical warfare of the worst kind! But it is getting hardly any attention from the media and politicians.

Do many of these institutions truly understand what the war against terrorism is and what the United States must do to win?

[b]Where did these terrorists get the poison gas[/b]? [b]The Jordanians know it came from [i]Syria[/i][/b]—which in itself is a dangerous act of war by that terrorist-sponsoring nation. But do America and Britain have the will to stop Syria’s terrorist activity? (Source: TheTrumpet.com)

With a little effort, one can find any number of these stories that generally end up on page A-28 in the liberal media, get barely a mention just once just before the feature story on the marshmellow industry on Cable TV news channels, and are quickly removed from public view so as to hide clear indications if not OBVIOUS answers to the questions left-wingers continue to ask but refuse to hear answers to.

I don't often answer these kinds of questions because those who ask them, after all this time, do not WANT answers. They prefer to be willfully ignorant so that they may believe what they want to believe without personal consequence or responsibility.

I think that's why the Lord once said something about pearls and swine....

ENOUGH! A Common Sense Energy Policy and Affordable Gas

For DECADES we've been promised by politicians that they would "fix" the energy problems our nation has. For decades they have failed to do so. They are too busy enjoying the powers of their offices, while spending the massive taxes they collect on the gas we buy. All the while, they blame "big oil," and cripple our ability to find new domestic sources of fuel and energy.
There's no doubt that "big oil" likes the BIG profits they are getting due to the low supply/high demand market for gasoline these days. Yeah, it's called capitalism. We only consider their profits "obscene" because the media and politicians WANT us to. In fact, a fact that is often conveniently left out, Big Oil has relatively LOW profit margins, and relatively HIGH investments in research and development. They only take in about HALF the profits on a gallon of gas vs. the amount of TAXES the government takes in revenue!

So, here's a modest proposal to improve oil prices that would help the economy immensely and in short order.It's TIME for a sensible, straightforward plan to REALLY fix our energy challenges and return our gas to affordable levels.

(1) Congress must FIRST REPEAL the Federal gas tax. That would be 18-20 cents a gallon savings IMMEDIATELY.

(2) Congress should drop ALL restrictions on drilling for oil in Alaska and off the coast of the US, and should allow further exploration in all areas, regions, states and territories to discover more Crude.

(3) Congress should authorize doubling the capacity of our oil refineries in the next decade -- including authorizing subsidies for companies to build them, and shield laws to keep environmentalist wackos from suing to stop them.

(4) Congress should suspend indefinitely EPA regulations demanding dozens of different gasoline formulations due to alleged levels of "pollution" in given cities and regions of the US.

(5) Congress should authorize the construction of at least 25 NEW Nuclear power plants in the next decade -- if FRANCE can do it, WE can do it BETTER.

(6) Congress should authorize the use of coal -- or to covert coal to oil -- for other energy supplies.

IF these changes were implemented, within ONE YEAR gas prices would likely be down to between $1.25-$1.50 a gallon. HOW? Simple. The speculators that are bidding up the price of oil because they EXPECT limited availability would reverse course. The framework upon which they speculate would be jerked out from under them. ALSO, suppliers -- like OPEC -- would realize that we were serious, so they would vastly increase production to create a "glut" of oil to keep us DEPENDENT on them (somewhat akin to how a pusher keeps an addict hooked on heroin or coke). IF we were RESOLUTE, we could persevere and break our habit -- but NO ONE is resolute in Washington about ANYTHING -- except maintaining their own power.

And environmentalists and Liberals need not scream their opposition to this proposal. Your guys are in power. Your policies are working. Common sense is a lost trait. These ideas will never be implemented -- at least until we're using candles and riding horses again...

Ronald Reagan on Religion and Government

I ran across this statement that the late President Ronald Reagan made during his time in office. It is a brilliant and profound statement, and remains just as true right now as it was 25 years ago.


We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those that are humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.

- President Ronald W. Reagan

On Jeremiah Wright, Black Liberation Theology, & The Bible

Black "Liberation" Theology, like other forms of Liberation Theology, are based on the principle that "God is to be found and understood from among the poor." In other words, because Jesus was "poor" and born to a humble and oppressed people, this is where we should go to seek a proper understanding of God and His plan. This line of reasoning then INEVITABLY emphasizes to temporal condition of the poor over thier spiritual poverty, and equates the Gospel of salvation with that of "political liberation." The language of "political liberation" is dominated by the belief in "revolution" to overthrow the temporal tools of oppression and poverty -- normally in Black Liberation Theology, the WHITE dominated political and economic system -- and replace it with [of course] Marxism. In other words, Black Liberation Theology is the melding together of Black Racism, distorted pseudo-Christian Theology and Marxist-Communism.

It's treatment errs in that theology (properly understood as "the study of God") CANNOT be understood as "coming from" ANY human perspective, but ONLY from the Revelation of God Himself in His Word! Theology from ANY human source or experience viewed as authoritative is going to OBSCURE the truth of God's revelation, NOT express it.

It's treatment err's in that it makes victims of those who see themselves as the oppressed, and it therefore creates in them the false impression that somehow they are OWED [by God or by others] something in return -- and that this "repayment" may be secured by ANY means. Thus, it justifies whatever it's adherents choose to use as a strategy to achieve their own goals. Necessarily, it ignores or downplays the idea that EVERY human is "carnal, sold under sin," or has "fallen short of the glory of God," and instead insists that renewal must come NOT primarily through a personal spiritual "new birth," but by the political and revolutionary overthrow of current systems and governments. Thus, their belief in and support of Marxism -- and too often violence.

This is a PLAGUE, it is a heresy, and it should be openly confronted as such by the Biblical Church.

Southern Baptist Conference to Answer 5 Pt. Calvinism

John 3:16 Conference

Dates: November 6-7, 2008 (Thursday, Friday)

Location: First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia (Johnny Hunt, Pastor)

If you're interested in a critique of each of the five points of Calvinism, here's a conference you may be interested in: John 3:16 Conference.
This conference is not going to be a "Let's bash the Calvinists" conference. This conference is going to be a biblical and theological assessment of and response to 5-point Calvinism. It will be helpful for lay people as well as preachers.

Steve Lemke, one of the speakers, explains:
Southern Baptist scholars will be presenting a Biblical response to the well-known tenets of the Presbyterian Synod of Dort. . . . This conference is intended as a majoritarian Southern Baptist response to the "Building Bridges" and "Together for the Gospel" conferences.
Given the line-up of speakers, it seems geared toward older pastors and lay people within the SBC. Furthermore, it seems that it is only intended to be heard by those who actually attend the conference: "There will be no live or archived audio or video of this conference via the Internet."


It'll be interesting to see the number of attendees. Since it is being held in Johnny Hunt's megachurch, and since most of his people will probably attend, I expect there will probably be at least 7,000 people there. If so, expect the Baptist Press to play up the significance of this number.

Featuring: (exact schedule to be posted later)

John 3:16 - Dr. Jerry Vines

Total Depravity - Dr. Paige Patterson

Unconditional Election - Dr. Richard Land

Limited Atonement - Dr. David Allen

Irresistible Grace - Dr. Steve Lemke

Perseverance of the Saints - Dr. Ken Keathley

John 3:16 to the entire world - Dr. Charles Stanley


FROM JDW: I found this today in my email, and also saw it posted on the Society of Evangelical Arminians website. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Johnny Hunt -- I've been acquainted with him for over 20 years. Dr. Jerry Vines is one of the Best Preachers I've ever heard/met, as are Dr. Paige Patterson, Dr. Richard Land, and Dr. Charles Stanley. I will likely attend this conference. Anyone want to join me there? I've been to FBC Woodstock a number of times. Besides, it will be FUN to see Southern Baptists come out as Arminians, yet retain that whole "unconditional perseverance of the saints" thing.
We who've BEEN Arminian Baptists should at least SEND a committee to welcome them to our world!

Jesus Slaves

Bumper stickers tell you a lot about the people who stick them to their cars. The pithy, quaint and sometimes profound little slogans are often packed with humor, meaning, or just frivolity.

I saw a bumper sticker last night that caught my attention -- but not in a good way. I'll see them every now and again. About 6 months ago I saw one that made Christians out to be fascists. So, a couple of times a year, I'll see something like this.

"Jesus Slaves." That's what the sticker said. White background, black type with red outlines. Jesus Slaves.

Now, had there been some context to this statement like Paul's statement, "Likewise he who is called [while] free is Christ's slave," (I Corinthians 7:22b) it would have been one thing. After all, we have been made Christ's slave by our choice. Our willingness to submit is not grievous because, as the Lord says, "My yoke [is] easy and My burden is light" (Matthew 11:30).

But, I think we're all quite certain that was not the meaning of the bumper sticker. This person likely had fallen for the too oft painted picture of a Christianity that demands and requires. You know: “Do this!” “Don’t do that!” “Go there!” “Wear this!” “Never go there!” So many times that’s the FALSE impression people get about Christ and following Him. And unfortunately, many who call themselves His followers have fallen into that same trap of performance. We must DO to earn His merits. We must pay to gain His attention.

I used to be enamored of the same view. Then, I learned the meaning of GRACE. Grace gives when we have nothing to give in return. Grace loves when we are unlovely. Grace FREES when we are enslaved. Grace fills when we are empty and begins to empty us of worldly worries, only to fill us with eternals blessings. That anyone could display a bumper sticker saying “Jesus Slaves” gives ample evidence that they do not KNOW Jesus.

Yes, I can say with Paul, I am a “bondservant for Jesus’ sake” (II Corinthians 4:5). And happily so -- I wouldn’t have it any other way.

JDW

Dogs under His Table

But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table (Matthew 15:26, 27).

Dogs. That's it? The woman was pleading for help with a demon-possessed daughter. And Jesus first speaks not a word to her. Then He tells His disciples He is called to the House of Israel -- and not to DOGS.

I'm partial to dogs. I have two Daschunds. They are sitting with me as I write this. Sweet dogs. But the connotation of the word used by Jesus was anything but an endearing term.
The Jews, while they boasted of being the children of God, gave the name of "dogs" to the heathen, for their idolatry, etc. It was, for lack of a better term, a racial (and spiritual) epithet. An insult. A putdown.

Of course there are obvious eschatological implications in Jesus' words. He had indeed come to offer the Kingdom to Israel. His concern was with the Jews. But, was it necessary for Him to be so derogatory when He finally answered this poor woman?

Three observations:

First, the Jews had no real REASON to boast against this woman or any other Gentile -- they were as guilty of sin before God as were any of the Gentile peoples. Paul details that at length in Romans 1:18-3:23.

Second, If anyone IS justified in calling this woman -- or any other human throughout history! -- as a "dog," it is the Lord Himself. He is the perfect, incarnate Son of God! This woman -- and I, and YOU -- are worse than dogs, lost in our sins, deserving of nothing. Some point out at this point that the Greek term He used meant "lap dog" or "little dog," as opposed to a scavenger dog or attack dog -- but under the circumstances, did that make the term any easier to hear?

Third, and most importantly, real faith -- as seen in this woman's response to the Lord's apparent insult -- is often NOT seen until it is challenged, until it is tried. How would this woman react -- rejection, faithlessness, pride....Acceptance, faith, humilty?

"It's true Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the Master's table." There are only two ways to "amaze" Jesus. The first is unbelief, the second is "great faith." And Jesus was amazed at this woman's great faith. And that faith was rewarded -- her daughter was delivered from demonic possession.

Do we have that kind of faith? Do I? I sometimes doubt it. To apparently be ignored, then seemingly insulted...Could I stick it out and persist in faith as she did? We never hear from this Syrophoenician woman again. She does not grace the pages of scripture beyond this one episode. What an example she leaves us. What great faith we should seek to emulate.

JDW

Progressive Rock: Can Rock Music be Artistic and Intelligent?

I've recently rekindled an interest in Progressive Rock music -- a genre that is too often absent the recognition it observes, usually because it doesn't fit the 4 minute, teeny booper, mindless pop culture syrup that passes for "music" these days.

Progressive Rock (often referred to as Prog Rock) came into being in the late 1960's and early 1970's, as some artists wanted to create a form of Rock music that had artistic credibility and also sought to engage the mind. Many of the early artists were British, but Prog Rock has become a global genre in the decades since its appearance on the scene.

The origins of Prog Rock are numerous, and some or all of these elements are identifiable in the various artists of the genre. Contributing styles include psychadelic rock, jazz, [jazz-rock] fusion, blues-rock, hard rock, metal, folk rock, experimental music, electronic art music, classical, free jazz and even some celtic elements.

The musical styles usually emphasized innovative technical and compositional stylings, lyrics that tend to be intricate, meaningful and conceptual, and sometimes based in fantasy, abstract truth and grand over-arching themes.

Pioneers in the Prog Rock genre include groups such as Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Rush, The Moody Blues, King Crimson and Emerson, Lake and Palmer. One would also have to mention groups of that era that -- if not regarded as full on Prog Rock practitioners -- were certainly influenced by and contributed to the genre to some degree, like Kansas, Styx, Asia, and Deep Purple.

The "first wave" of Prog Rock hit it's peak in the late 1970's to the mid-1980's, and then went into decline as musical stylings and popularity changed. Still, there has been a "second wave," identified as "neo-progressive" music, which had it's origins in the late 1980's and early 1990's, that have kept the genre alive and innovative. This decade there has been a resurgence in the genre's popularity in some areas, and with the exposure of more people to the art through the internet (internet radio, youtube, etc). Groups at the forefront of this "new wave" of resurgent progressive rock include Dream Theater, Amaran's Plight, Porcupine Tree, Dominici, Ayreon, Symphony X, and to a lesser extent more popular bands like Queesryche in the 1990's and Tool currently.

One of my personal favorites of the genre is Neal Morse. Morse has always been in Prog Rock, but a few years ago, he was saved. That transformation has translated into several powerful albums (okay, I'm old fashioned -- CD's!) that are as spiritually progressive as they are musically. I would recommend his CD's "?" and "Sola Scriptura." WOW -- good stuff. Prior to his solo efforts, he also performed with Spock's Beard and Transatlatic -- both solid and gifted progressive groups and musical styles.

I think because you find more innovative approaches to music in the Prog Rock genre, you also see more openness among some of its artists to express spiritual themes -- even blatantly Christian ones. My favorite place to hear a great mix of Prog Rock -- old and new -- is MOROW.Com -- a radio station available free through the internet at ITunes. I suppose you can get it via other means at their website as well.

Give it a listen and tell me what you all think.

Blessings,

JDW

The First "Baptist" Statement of Faith

This is the first "real" Baptist confession of faith. Actually, I got it a couple of years ago after "GenBap" posted it (on FWBNet or at the Baptist Online Library -- not sure which). It was written in 1611, in Amsterdam, where some 40-odd English Separatists under the charge John Smyth and Thomas Helwys fled to avoid persecution in England. The date of their exodus is not known exactly, but probably occurred in the winter of 1607/08.

During the 3+ years the Separatists remained in Amsterdam, they interacted with a diverse lot of "Christians," including continental Protestants, English religious exiles who'd fled earlier, Anabaptists (aka Mennonites) and many in the Dutch Reformed Church -- including the "Remonstrants," the supporters of Jacobus Arminius).

Many date the first "Baptist" Confession to 1609, when John Smyth penned his "Short Confession," however, by that time it was already clear that Smyth had begun to move toward Anabaptist ideas and beliefs, and his statement didn't represent the sentiments of Helwys and many of the other English Separatists. Thus, Helwys wrote his own "Declaration" in 1611, and within the next year, he and a dozen or so congregants returned to Spitalsfield, England, where they planted the first "Baptist Church."

Below is that Declaration -- I hope it's educational, and I'd enjoy knowing what stands out to you all about it....

A DECLARATION OF FAITH OF ENGLISH PEOPLE REMAINING AT AMSTERDAM IN HOLLAND.

Hebrews 11:6. Without Faith it is impossible to please GOD. Hebrews 11. Romans 14:23. Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin.

Printed. 1611.

To All The Humble minded which love the truth in simplicity Grace and peace.

A DECLARATION, ETC. WE BELEIVE AND CONFESS

1. That there are THREE which bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the SPIRIT; and these THREE are one GOD, in all equality, (1 John 5:7; Philippians 2:5, 6). By whom all things are created and preserved, in Heaven and in Earth. (Genesis 1).

2. That this GOD in the beginning created al things of nothing, (Genesis 1:1) and made man of the dust of the earth, (Genesis 2:7), in his own image, (Genesis 1:27), in righteousness and true Holiness. (Ephesians 4:24); yet being tempted, fell by disobedience. (Ephesians 3:1-7). Through whose disobedience, all men sinned. (Romans 5:12-19). His sin being imputed unto all; and so death went over all men.

3. That by the promised seed of the woman, JESUS CHRIST, [and by] his obedience, al are made righteous. (Romans 5:19). All are made alive, (1 Corinthians 15:22). His righteousness being imputed unto all.

4. That notwithstanding this, men are by nature the Children of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3) born in iniquity and in sin conceived. (Psalm 51:5) Wise to all evil, but to good they have no knowledge. (Jeremiah 4:22). The natural ma perceives not the things of the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14). And therefore man is not restored unto his former estate, but that as man, in his estate of innocence, having in himself all disposition unto good, &no disposition unto evil, yet being tempted might yield, or might resist: even so now being fallen, and having all disposition unto evil, and no disposition or will unto any good, yet GOD giving grace, man may receive grace, or my reject grace, according to that saying; (Deuteronomy 30:19) I call Heaven and Earth to record. This day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: Therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed may live.

5. That GOD before the Foundation of the World hath Predestinated that all that believe in him shall-be saved, (Ephesians 1:4, 12; Mark 16:16) and al that believe not shall be damned, (Mark 16:16) all which he knew before. (Romans 8:29) And this is the Election and reprobation spoken of in the Scriptures, concerning salvation, and condemnation, and not that GOD hath Predestinated men to be wicked, and so to be damned, but that men being wicked shall be damned, for GOD would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, (1 Timothy 2:4) and would have no man to perish, but would have all men come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) and wills not the death of him that dies. (Ezekiel 18:32). And therefore GOD is the author of no mans condemnation; according to the saying of the Prophet. (Hosea 13). Thy destruction O Israel, is of thy self, but thy help is of me.

6. That man is justified only by the righteousness of CHRIST, apprehended by faith, (Romans 3:28. Galatians 2:16) yet faith without works is dead. (James 2:17)

7. That men may fall away from the grace of GOD, (Hebrews 12:15) and from the truth, which they have received &acknowledged, (Hebrews 10:26) after they have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the HOLY GHOST, and have tasted of the good word of GOD, &of the powers of the world to come. (Hebrews 6:4, 5). And after they have escaped from the filthiness of the World, may be tangled again therein &overcome. (2 Peter 2:20). That a righteous man may forsake his righteousness and perish (Ezekiel 18:24, 26). And therefore let no man presume to think that because he hath, or had once grace, therefore he shall always have grace: But let all men have assurance, that if they continue unto the end, they shall be saved: Let no man then presume; but let all work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

8. That JESUS CHRIST, the Son of GOD the second Person, or subsistence in the Trinity, in the Fullness of time was manifested in the Flesh, being the seed of David, and of the Israelites, according to the Flesh, (Romans 1:3 and Romans 8:5) the Son of Marie the Virgin, made of her substance, (Galatians 4:4) by the power of the HOLY GHOST overshadowing her, (Luke 1:35) and being thus true Man was like unto us in all thing, sin only excepted. Hebrews (4:15) being one person in two distinct natures, TRUE GOD, and TRUE MAN.

9. That JESUS CHRIST is Mediator of the New Testament between GOD and Man, (1 Timothy 2:5) having all power in Heaven and in Earth given unto him. (Matthew 28:18) Being the only KING, (Luke 1:33) PREIST, (Hebrews 7:24) and PROPHET. (Acts 3:22) Of his church, he also being the only Law-giver, hath in his Testament set down an absolute, and perfect rule of direction, for all persons, at all times, to be observed; Which no Prince, nor any whosoever, may add to, or diminish from as they will avoid the fearful judgments denounced against them that shall so do. (Revelation 22:18, 19).

10. That the church of CHRIST is a company of faithful people (1 Corinthians 1:2. Ephesians 1:1) separated from the world by the word &Spirit of GOD (2 Corinthians 6:17) being knit unto the LORD, &one unto another, by Baptism. (1 Corinthians 12:13). Upon their own confession of the faith (Acts 8:37) and sins. (Matthew 3:6).

11. That though in respect of CHRIST, the Church be one (Ephesians 4:4) yet it consists of divers particular congregations, even so many as there shall be in the World, every of which congregation, though they be but two or three, have CHRIST given them, with all the means of their salvation. (Matthew 18:20. Romans 8:32. 1 Corinthians 3:22). Are the Body of CHRIST (1 Corinthians 12:27) and a whole Church. (1 Corinthians 14:23) And therefore may, and ought, when they are come together, to Pray, Prophecy, break bread, and administer in all the holy ordinances, although as yet they have no Officers, or that their Officers should be in Prison, sick, or by any other means hindered from the Church. (1 Peter 4:10 &2:5).

12. That as one congregation hath CHRIST, so hath all, (2 Corinthians 10:7). And that the Word of GOD comes not out from any one, neither to any one congregation in particular. (1 Corinthians 14:36). But unto every particular Church, as it doth unto al the world. (Colossians 1:5. 6). And therefore no church ought to challenge any prerogative over any other.

13. That every Church is to receive in all their members by Baptism upon the Confession of their faith and sins wrought by the preaching of the Gospel, according to the primitive Institution, (Matthew 28:19) and practice, (Acts 2:41). And therefore Churches constituted after any other manner, or of any other persons are not according to CHRISTS Testament.

14. That Baptism or washing with water is the outward manifestation of dieing unto sin, and walking in newness of life. (Romans 6:2, 3, 4). And therefore in no wise appertains to infants.

15. That the LORDS Supper is the outward manifestation of the Spiritual communion between CHRIST and the faithful mutually (1 Corinthians 10:16, 17) to declare his death until he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26).

16. That the members of every Church or Congregation ought to know one another, so that they may perform all the duties of love one towards another, both to soul and body. (Matthew 18:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 1 Corinthians 12:25). And especially the Elders ought to know the whole flock, whereof the HOLY GHOST hath made them overseers. (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2, 3). And therefore a Church ought not to consist of such a multitude as cannot have particular knowledge one of another.

17. That Brethren impenitent in one sin after the admonition of the Church, are to be excluded the communion of the Saints (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:4, 13) &therefore not the committing of sin doth cut of any from the Church, but refusing to hear the Church to reformation.

18. That Excommunicants in respect of civil society are not to be avoided, (2 Thessalonians 3:15. Matthew 18:17).

19. That every Church ought (according to the example of CHRISTS Disciples and primitive Churches) upon every first day of the week, being the LORDS day, to assemble together to pray, prophecy, praise GOD, and break Bread, and perform all other parts of Spiritual communion for the worship of GOD, their own mutual edification, and the preservation of true Religion, &piety in the church (John 20:19. Acts 2:42 and 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2) and that ought not to labor in their callings according to the equity of the moral law, which CHRIST came not to abolish, but to fulfill. (Exodus 20:8 &c).

20. That the Officers of every Church or congregation are either Elders, who by their office do especially feed the flock concerning their souls, (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2, 3) or Deacons Men, and Women who by their office relieve the necessities of the poor and impotent brethren concerning their bodies, (Acts 6:1-4).

21. That these Officers are to be chosen when there are persons qualified according to the rules in Christ’s Testament, (1 Timothy 3:2-7. Titus 1:6-9. Acts 6:3. 4) by Election and approbation of that Church or congregation whereof they are members, (Acts 6:3. 4 and 14:23), with Fasting, Prayer, and Laying on of hands, (Acts 13:3. and 14:23). And there being but one rule for Elders, therefore but one sort of Elders.

22. That the Officers of every Church or congregation are tied by Office only to that particular congregation whereof they are chosen, (Acts 14:23, and 20:17. Titus 1:5). And therefore they cannot challenge by office any authorities in any other congregation whatsoever except they would have an Apostleship.

23. That the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are written for our instruction, (2 Timothy 3:16) &that we ought to search them for they testify of CHRIST, (10:5. 39). And therefore to be used withal reverence, as containing the Holy Word of GOD, which only is our direction in al things whatsoever.

24. That Magistracy is a Holy ordinance of GOD, that every soul ought to be subject to it not for fear only, but for conscience sake. Magistrates are the ministers of GOD for our wealth, they bear not the sword for naught. They are the ministers of GOD to take vengeance on them that do evil, (Romans 13). That it is a fearful sin to speak evil of them that are in authority, and to despise Government. (2 Peter 2:10). We ought to pay tribute, custom and all other duties. That we are to pray for the, for GOD would have them saved and come to the knowledge of his truth. (1 Timothy 2:1. 4). And therefore they may be members of the Church of CHRIST, retaining their Magistracy, for no Holy Ordinance of GOD debars any from being a member of CHRISTS Church. They bear the sword of GOD, — which sword in all Lawful administrations is to be defended and supported by the servants of GOD that are under their Government with their lives and al that they have according as in the first Institution of that Holy Ordinance. And whosoever holds otherwise must hold, (if they understand themselves) that they are the ministers of the devil, and therefore not to be prayed for nor approved in any of their administrations, — seeing all things they do (as punishing offenders and defending their countries, state, and persons by the sword) is unlawful.

25. That it is Lawful in a just cause for the deciding of strife to take an oath by the Name of the Lord. (Hebrews 6:16; 2 Corinthians 1:23. Philippians 1:8).

26. That the dead shall rise again, and the living being changed in a moment, - having the same bodies in substance though divers in qualities. (1 Corinthians 15:52 and 38. Job 19:15-28. Luke 24:30).

27. That after the resurrection all men shall appear before the judgment seat of CHRIST to be judged according to their works, that the Godly shall enjoy life Eternal, the wicked being condemned shall be tormented everlastingly in Hell. (Matthew 25:46).

Finis

Easter 2008 - What Happened from the Cross to the Throne? (and what it means to us)

As Easter has arrived, and Resurrection Sunday is just hours away, I thought I might deal with and explain an issue which I (and others far more intellectually savvy) are asked each spring about this time.

What happened from the time Jesus died, until His resurrection?

And there are corollary questions that go with that, like:

Where are the souls of those who died (faithful and faithless) prior to the time of Christ?

What's the difference in "hades" and "gehenna"? Aren't they both "hell?"

Is the "Paradise" which Jesus mentioned to the thief on the cross the same as "Heaven?"

Did Jesus "go to hell?"

And there are many other variations and related inquiries. I hope the following explanation will be enlightening and help to make sense of these questions....

Until the time of the Cross, ALL men who died, went to a "temporary" place for the dead -- "sheol," "hades," etc... The righteous dead -- those who died in FAITH -- departed to "Abraham's bosom," or Paradise [as did Lazarus] while the faithless dead went to "Hades" [as did the 'rich man'] (Luke 16:19-31).

NOTE: All who died in faith prior TO the time of Christ looked forward to the promised redemption of God in FAITH -- though WHAT or WHO that redemption would be had not been revealed -- the means of salvation has ALWAYS been FAITH. But we KNOW that they certainly figured it out by the time Jesus was on earth:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad" (John 8:56).

So, prior to Christ' death and resurrection, all who died went to these "holding cells," akin to a county jail -- where they are bound over UNTIL the time of trial [or THE JUDGMENT] (Revelation 20:11ff).

As to those in Paradise -- indeed, when Jesus "dismissed His spirit," Scripture seems to indicate that Jesus did "descend into Hades" as is stated in the Apostles Creed, and affirmed in Scripture:

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water" (I Peter 3:18-20; cf. Psalm 16:10).

This "Preaching," however, WAS NOT meant to be remedial, nor to offer those who had died without faith "another chance." Rather, it was to declare to those who had died the [b]final revelation of the redemption [/b]which they had [i]already[/i] received or rejected -- and that revelation was JESUS CHRIST Himself.

Those who had died in faith were delivered from Paradise, and ushered into the VERY PRESENCE of God, heaven:

"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)" (Ephesians 4:8-10). It is worth noting that some of those "captives" who were set free apparently made a stop along the way: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose..." (Matthew 27:52).

Thus, "Paradise" is now empty, because Jesus has through His death and resurrection become the way for ALL the redeemed to come "boldly before His throne"... HOWEVER, those in "Hades" -- the portion reserved for the faithless dead, remains "in business," adding to it's number, "enlarging it's borders," in anticipation of the Great White Throne -- THAT Day, the LAST DAY, the Day of Judgment -- Final Judgment:

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

[i][b]And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire[/b][/i] This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:11-15).

In other words, after the Millennial Kingdom, at the Final Judgment, THEN "death and hell [HADES] are cast into the Lake of Fire [GEHENNA]" for eternity.

So, in summary, when Jesus "gave up the ghost," He "descended into Hades" and "preached unto the spirits in prison" in the sense that he presented Himself as the ultimate redemption which those in Paradise had looked forward to in faith, and those in hades had rejected in faithlessness. He then "led captivity captive," opening the way for all those who had by faith trusted God for redemption to enter into Heavenm the very presence of God. Those in hades remain there in waiting until their final judgment and their final disposition as eternal occupants of the Lake of Fire. Since Jesus' resurrection, ALL who have trusted Him upon their death are IMMEDIATELY ushered into heaven, for "to be absent from the body [is] to be present with the Lord" (II Corinthians 5:8).

Hope this presents a solid explanation of what Jesus did "from the Cross to the Throne," and what the disposition of the People of God is past, present and future.

I Will Restore...

"And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you" (Joel 2:26).

In my recent reflection on the Scriptures, this passage has stayed with me. It came to my mind again today, as I considered how -- as humans -- we allow so much to crowd into our minds and cloud our lives. Sometimes, it's merely the "tyranny of the urgent." Too often, it is the corruption that we are heir to in the flesh.

It's troubling that we don't even recognize this corruption that courses through our veins or that clamors for our attention in our minds. Contrary to the teachings of some, these sinister drives, doubts and temptations lurk even within Christians. Christians are human too. Christians struggle with the flesh. They struggle with the dilemmas of existence, the challenges of ethical and moral decisions. And yes, they -- WE -- fail. Not always. Not without remedy -- Thanks be to God through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

But I find comfort -- even repose -- in the words of Joel 2:25. God, speaking to His people Israel, promises personally to "restore...the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm..." Those years -- YEARS -- that were "eaten," were consumed by our own errors. Our own sins. Our own wanderings. Our own rebellion. Those insects were "a great army which I [GOD] sent among you." Our lives, our possessions, our TIME, were laid waste -- because WE have wasted them. Our decisions, our choices, brought upon us this waste and corruption.

But God, in His GRACE, promises, "I will restore..." Not that we deserve it. Only that He, in mercy and love, will return that which we've forfeited. And then He'll give MORE...

I affirm in my own heart often, this truth: "But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name's sake: because thy mercy [is] good, deliver thou me" (Psalm 109:21). That assurance is priceless in the peace it provides to one who too often fails -- but eternally trusts in Him.

John Piper On Self-Determination and Arminian Heresy

It's always sad to me when I see a man of God (or so I think) from a different theological perspective whom I believed to be above this kind of intra-Christian exclusivist language to charge full steam ahead into the abyss of ignorance, or worse, the territory of theological lies.

Recently, John Piper, well known Baptist Calvinist Pastor from Minnesota and popular author, spoke at the "Resurgence Conference." The title of his message was, How I Distinguish Between the Gospel and False Gospels. Already, if you're like me, you're expecting trouble. The series of quotes below are from that message. I'll at least initially leave extensive commentary to others, and only note points of interest. But to check the context and accuracy, you may see Piper's blog or the Resurgence blog, where outlines or transcripts are located:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... e_Gospels/
OR:
http://www.theresurgence.com/national_r ... nd_context

In part of his opening statement he said, "My working out of my salvation tonight is in the defense and confirmation of the gospel."

Piper lays out "Six Aspects of the Gospel Without Which There Is No Gospel." These include:

1. The gospel was planned by God beforehand
2. The gospel is an objective physical event in history
3. The gospel is an objective accomplishment—the purchase or obtaining of redemption for all who would believe
4. The gospel is an offer to be made to all that what Christ accomplished is free and may be had only by faith in him
5. The gospel is an application through faith to specific people of what Christ accomplished
6. The gospel is an eternal and infinitely happy future destiny

NOTE: Does any of this, so far, sound like something Arminians DON'T believe?!

He continued, "There are many today, as in every day, who bring to the Bible the presupposition that sinful man must have the power of self-determination in order to be held accountable by God. This is not a biblical presupposition."

NOTE: What Piper describes is not Arminianism, but Semi-Pelagianism. But do you think HE knows the difference? Do you?

But then he adds, "We don't usually think about Arminianism as a threat to the atonement. It usually comes in at the point of the accomplishment of the gospel and the offer of the gospel, not the point of the plan of the events of the gospel. But here we see that there is an intrinsic incompatibility between the basic Arminian presupposition and the gospel as including a set of planned sins against the Son of God. That presupposition is that for humans to be morally accountable agents they must have the ultimate power of self-determination at all those points where they are found blameworthy or praiseworthy."

It's downhill from here. He continutes, "That presupposition pushes people away from believing that God has the right and power in righteousness and wisdom to infallibly plan the death of his Son through the sinful acts of morally accountable men. But the Bible teaches that he did. There is no atonement and no gospel without God-planned sins against the Son of God. He died at the hands of sinful men by God's design. That is an essential part of the gospel."

He continued, "This is typical Arminian teaching. It diminishes the glory of the cross and encourages people to take into their own hands what belongs to the work of the cross, namely the purchase of their own rescue from unbelief."

NOTE: This is not only wrong, but it is blatantly false, and a man like John Piper should know that. NO Arminian worth his salt would EVER say such a thing, and for Piper to make this charge he is either: (1) completely ignorant of Arminian teaching, or (2) lying through his teeth willfully.


He further charged that "God is allowed to rescue them from the guilt of sin by the cross, but not from the bondage of unbelief by the cross. The cross does not obtain or accomplish that. I must provide the decisive impetus for overcoming my unbelief, the cross did not accomplish that. In that way part of the gospel is undone."

NOTE: If any of you actually understand this twisted logic, let me know...?

Piper further said: "The accomplishment of the cross is offered freely to be received by faith alone apart from works of the law, meaning, any work of the heart or hand at all, anything other than faith."

NOTE: But, that's what Arminians believe, right...?

He says, "Arminianism (Wesleyanism) teaches that God helps all people overcome their deadness of soul and leaves to the decisive will of man whether to follow that grace and trust Christ and as a consequence be born again. In other words regeneration does not cause faith; faith, in an act of ultimate self-termination, chooses to agree with God's grace and believe and thus be born again."

NOTE: Wait -- is he defending the Gospel -- or CALVINISM?! Insisting regeneration precedes faith is CALVINISM, not the gospel....

Piper continued, "How serious is this? Must one believe that faith is decisively caused by God through regeneration? Or can one be saved believing that faith causes regeneration?"

NOTE: Indeed, how serious is this? If Arminians reject regeneration preceding faith, does that mean we believe and preach a "false gospel?"

His summary goes something like this: "The issue comes down to this: Is the heart relationship to God one of utter reliance on God's grace in Spirit-wrought humility, such that God gets the glory for all of my salvation, both accomplishment and application?"

NOTE: Uh, yeah -- Arminians BELIEVE that John -- but Semi-Pelagians DON'T. LEARN from someone other than Calvin.

He asks, "Can the heart be truly humble and reliant in this way while the mind espouses a theology that claims that the human will is taking credit for what the humble heart is really depending on God to provide?"

NOTE: Again, not what Arminians teach....

AND, ""Arminianism in its popular form (most of evangelicalism) says we are unable without divine assistance to believe, because we are dead in trespasses and sins, but God gives assistance to all, making it possible for us to believe but not bringing us to believe. That is left for our decisive determination. At that point we are ultimately self-determining."

NOTE: No, that's what most Evangelicals believe -- but that's the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism, NOT Arminianism...

FINALLY he charges, "Arminianism/Wesleyanism recognizes more truth about our sinful and helpless condition apart from grace, and gives more credit to grace, but stumbles intellectually over the implications of sovereign grace. It cannot bring itself to embrace the apparent implications of faith as a gift of God, namely, unconditional election. It appears to them unjust and unloving. Historically, a charitable view of a good heart behind this mistaken theology have been encouraged."


Okay -- what say ye all??


J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

William F. Buckley, Conservative Extraordinaire, Dies at 82

NEW YORK - William F. Buckley Jr., the erudite Ivy Leaguer and conservative herald who showered huge and scornful words on liberalism as he observed, abetted and cheered on the right's post-World War II rise from the fringes to the White House, died Wednesday. He was 82.

His assistant Linda Bridges said Buckley was found dead by his cook at his home in Stamford, Conn. The cause of death was unknown, but he had been ill with emphysema, she said.

Editor, columnist, novelist, debater, TV talk show star of "Firing Line," harpsichordist, trans-oceanic sailor and even a good-natured loser in a New York mayor's race, Buckley worked at a daunting pace, taking as little as 20 minutes to write a column for his magazine, the National Review.

Yet on the platform he was all handsome, reptilian languor, flexing his imposing vocabulary ever so slowly, accenting each point with an arched brow or rolling tongue and savoring an opponent's discomfort with wide-eyed glee.

"I am, I fully grant, a phenomenon, but not because of any speed in composition," he wrote in The New York Times Book Review in 1986. "I asked myself the other day, `Who else, on so many issues, has been so right so much of the time?' I couldn't think of anyone."

Buckley had for years been withdrawing from public life, starting in 1990 when he stepped down as top editor of the National Review. In December 1999, he closed down "Firing Line" after a 23-year run, when guests ranged from Richard Nixon to Allen Ginsberg. "You've got to end sometime and I'd just as soon not die onstage," he told the audience.

"For people of my generation, Bill Buckley was pretty much the first intelligent, witty, well-educated conservative one saw on television," fellow conservative William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said at the time the show ended. "He legitimized conservatism as an intellectual movement and therefore as a political movement."

Fifty years earlier, few could have imagined such a triumph. Conservatives had been marginalized by a generation of discredited stands — from opposing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to the isolationism which preceded the U.S. entry into World War II. Liberals so dominated intellectual thought that the critic Lionel Trilling claimed there were "no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation."

Buckley founded the biweekly magazine National Review in 1955, declaring that he proposed to stand "athwart history, yelling `Stop' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it." Not only did he help revive conservative ideology, especially unbending anti-Communism and free market economics, his persona was a dynamic break from such dour right-wing predecessors as Sen. Robert Taft.

Although it perpetually lost money, the National Review built its circulation from 16,000 in 1957 to 125,000 in 1964, the year conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater was the Republican presidential candidate. The magazine claimed a circulation of 155,000 when Buckley relinquished control in 2004, citing concerns about his mortality, and over the years the National Review attracted numerous young writers, some who remained conservative (George Will, David Brooks), and some who didn't (Joan Didion, Garry Wills).

"I was very fond of him," Didion said Wednesday. "Everyone was, even if they didn't agree with him."

Born Nov. 24, 1925, in New York City, William Frank Buckley Jr. was the sixth of 10 children of a a multimillionaire with oil holdings in seven countries. The son spent his early childhood in France and England, in exclusive Roman Catholic schools.

His prominent family also included his brother James, who became a one-term senator from New York in the 1970s; his socialite wife, Pat, who died in April 2007; and their son, Christopher, a noted author and satirist ("Thank You for Smoking").

********

Despite the fact that he had “fought a good fight,” and that he has earned his rest, this is a tremendous loss for the Conservative movement in general.

My favorite memory of Buckley was the way he used to drive Phil Donahue absolutely INSANE in old “Donahue” show days. Phil would be flapping his arms like wings and squawking like a chicken by the time Buckley got through with him. It was glorious.

My favorite works by Buckley were his many excellent newspaper columns over the years, and his tremendous “Blackford Oakes” novels. Wow.

His intellectual brilliance and ability to defeat liberals with little more than that mischievous stare and profound one liners will inspire for many years to come, and will be missed for just as long.

Blessings, Mr. Buckley. Thank you.

JDW

Wrong Turn at Jericho, Kansas?

Early in 2007, a new series debutted on CBS entitled Jericho. It was awesome. It addressed in dramatic and very human terms what would happen to the inhabitants of a small, relatively isolated town in the heartland of American in the event of a nuclear war?

The actors were excellent. The plots were intricate and laden with dramatic twists. The characters were unique, their backstories invaluable to the foundation and progress of the storyline. Jericho had such promise! When CBS cancelled the series, I went NUTS! Literally. And so did millions of others.

Late last spring, tons of "nuts" arrived at CBS network HQ, a resistance campaign referenced in the final episode of the first season when "Jake" (Skeet Ulrich) is asked to surrender to the New Bern forces, and he responds "nuts!" When CBS announced that they would renew Jericho for a short second season of 7 episodes, I was elated.

I'm still watching. The first two episodes of the new season have moved quickly, introduced new characters and turned the plot in a new direction. I miss Mayor Green (Gerald McRaney) who was killed in the last episode. I also miss Mrs. Green ( Pamela Reed), who played a pivotal role in holding the town and her family together in the wake of the attack. I understand CBS did not renew her contract for the show, apparently because the cast was "too old," which I find very disappointing, and a bit infuriating. Also missing are the teenaged store owner Dale and his "girlfriend," at least thus far. All of these losses have cut a tremendous amount of potential for both developing the characters and the greater story of Jericho. I suppose with just 7 episodes this season, it's difficult to squeeze in all these story lines -- which is why they should have ordered another 22 episodes, but I digress.

Even with those characters and story lines gone, at least for now, the action and pace of the series is still excellent. But with the arrival of the new characters, a new government and nation, and a decidely inward turn to the plot direction, I am concerned about Jericho.

Unfortunately, the plot twist was perdictable. It's very "Hollywood" in the years since 9/11 and the tendency of the cultural Left to "blame America first." Last season, the United States was attacked by nearly two dozen nuclear weapons -- 23 major cities were destroyed, including most of the government in Washington, DC. What was left of the government and military separated into factions, and one faction launched a nuclear response against those whom they said were to blame. In the storyline, it was Iran and North Korea. So far, so good -- because THAT is a realistic possibility. Unless you are from Hollywood or Washington, DC.

Even during the first season viewers knew we weren't getting the whole story. We knew elements of the Government were involved in the plot. This year, however, it appears they aren't involved. Apparently, these elements of the government are COMPLETELY to blame for the nuclear attacks. Which means that the retaliatory strikes against Iran and North Korea, which destroyed those nations, were meant only to cover up "the biggest lie in history," as Jake said last Tuesday. And these evil Americans, in order to wrest control of the nation from the apparently patriotic government in Washington DC (I'm getting nauseous), sets off the nukes, then detsroys those poor, innocent Communists in North Korea and Islamofascists in Iran.

Not missing a beat, of course, this new "Government" of the "Allied States of America," has already printed up nice new textbooks for the school children of Jericho which present a clearly biased RIGHT WING view of history. This new Government is unelected, has called a new Constitutional Convention, and has shut down freedom of the Press among other civil rights.

No, I've not stopped watching yet. I'm hoping against hope that the evil elements within this new government on Jericho will be revealed to have worked with outside sources. I'm hoping that most of those who formed the "Allied States of America" will be portrayed not as dupes or fools, or else as the evil ideologues that haunt the mind of Leftists all over our land. I hope they'll get credit for trying to bring something good out of such horror -- even though some of the leeches that have attached themselves to the ASA are evil and have to be removed.

But then, I think about other series coming out of Hollywood today -- take 24 for instance -- where it's never the "bad guys" who are the ultimate bad guys, it's ALWAYS Americans. It's always government bigshots, or corporate bigshots, or military bigshots (all Conservatives, or Bible-thumpers, or greedy Capitalists) who want to overturn the noble public servants serving us in Washington, DC, or at least in the news media (the stench is almost beyond comprehension now). No, I haven't stopped watching -- but coming from Hollywood, what are the chances that any of the plot developments or character traits I've desired will come to pass? From Hollywood? I'm not sure why they didn't just go ahead and name the new President of the Allied States "Bush" or "Cheney," and dress him in SS black with a swastika emblazoned on each shoulder.

And to top it off, the "enforcers" of this new government to this point on Jericho are none other than a REAL bunch of heroes fighting now on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan -- the 10th Mountain Division! Again, I hold out great hope that these brave men will be portrayed as HEROES rather than as patsies for an evil regime. To have them protect what has so far been portrayed as an "evil government" is a very real disservice to the men and women of the 10th who've fought and died on foreign fields of battle for our nation in the current REAL war.

I still plan on watching Jericho Tuesdays at 10pm. I understand they lost almost 30% of their audience from week one to week two. I'm sorry to hear that. If, however, many of the people who tuned in observed what I did, I'm not surprised if they turned Jericho off. Just another great program that Hollywood wants to destroy, to use to superimpose their message.

I'll be watching. I'll be hoping that Jericho can right itself. But I have little confidence in CBS executives and Hollywood writers. And if things in Jericho do go the way I expect, I'll know I shouldn't have taken that last left turn in Jericho, Kansas. That will make it easier to see Jericho fade away at the end of this season.

Conservatives Get McCained - Shall We Submit?

I held my nose and voted for George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992. That was after his "Read my lips..." debacle. We got the Clintons.

I held my nose and voted for Bob Dole in 1996. He was a war hero. He was a "big government" Republican Senator who just happened to be "the next in line." We got the Clintons -- again.

I held my nose and voted for George Walker Bush in 2000. It was an act of God that he happened to be the President at the time of 9/11. He was THE leader we needed in the initial years following 9/11. Though I enthusiatically supported and voted for him in 2004, in some ways it is a vote I now regret. But He is not a Conservative either. He was fiscally irresponsible. He has failed to assert himself on a host of issues that could have made a great difference. He has presided over the surrender of Congress back to the Democrats -- though ALL elected Republicans in Washington bear the blame for that mess.

I have often said I won't be "bushed" or "Doled" again. No, now I am faced with being "McCained." After years of insults from this man, I am told I have no choice but to forget all his insults, all his betrayals of principles I hold dear, all the angry expletive laced tirades he's hurled at those who defied his views... I am told to "compromise."

I am a Conservative. I have compromised ENOUGH. I have compromised ever since Reagan left office in 1988, if not before. What shall I compromise next? What have I NOT compromised already? When do liberals and "moderates" get around to compromising? Why is it that "bi-partisanship" means Conservatives have to agree with Liberals, but Liberals have to change NOTHING?

I am a Conservative. I believe in LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I DO NOT believe either Republicans or Democrats share those values today. But I will NO LONGER compromise them.

I am a Conservative. I will not hold my nose and vote away my principles again. I have done it for 20 years. I have gained nothing, and more importantly, neither has our nation. If I surrender my principles again, our nation may never wake up, may never return to it's foundational principles.

I am a Conservative, I am an American. I have had enough of the political games. I am standing on principle. Come what may.