Marriage and Divorce

On this day I thought I would post a dialogue I enjoyed with a friend concerning the subject of marriage, a dialogue that was precipitated by his article on the subject. This is a pretty good discussion in terms of offering my views on what Scripture teaches about marriage and related topics.

Some of the specific issues contained therein are of the following:

Marriage - what it is and when it begins

Divorce - what it is and when it is justified

Provision - what the Scriptures say about wives and mothers working

Adultery - when it occurs

A good resource on these subjects is Stanley Grenz’s, Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective.


FRANK:

“Because marriage is a picture of salvation.”

So is slavery.

“Have they adhered to God’s principles regarding divorce and remarriage? (An aside: Do you, like John Piper, believe that the only justification for divorce was during the Jewish betrothal period? Do you believe there is justification for divorce for continued, unrepentant adultery? Do you believe the spouse doesn’t count as the brother we are to forgive 77 times? Or, do you consider the normality of divorce in the church just apart of life that does not reflect an inadequate view of the holiness of God to the watching world?)”

God divorced Israel for “continued, unrepentant adultery”.

The appropriate principle that we must deal with is Jesus’ understanding that “whatever God brings together, let no man separate”? The question is: what has God brought together? We have to be careful to distinguish between man-recognized marriage and God-recognized marriage (for example: just because a local church excommunicates a member does not necessarily mean this was God’s will and that the member was guilty. The Roman Catholic Church excommunicated Martin Luther; was that excommunication recognized by God?). Just because two people decide to shack up does not mean that they are recognized by God as being married. If so, then God could recognize gay marriage. If so, then God could recognize incestual marriage. If so, then God could recognize a marriage between a child and an adult.

Now, if two people live with each other for the rest of their lives in a monogamous relationship but never have a ceremony, are they married and so recognized by God? Some states would recognize it as a common law marriage. In what way does God recognize their relationship? If two unbelieving teens marry just out of high school and divorce a few months later and the man later becomes a believer and remarries and lives a blameless life with the same wife until their deaths, which marriage will God honor, the first or the second? Was the second marriage adulterous or the first?

When does a marriage begin? Does it begin when the couple has sex? If so, then men who are paralyzed from the waist down are never actually married. Does it begin with the wedding ceremony? If so, then if two people agree to marry but never have a wedding ceremony then they are never ever married (Is a person not saved if he accepts God but does not get Baptized?). Does it begin when two people are recognized legally as such by the state? Nonsense. That’s the main problem we are facing today with gay marriage. I say that just because the state recognizes two people as married does not mean that God recognizes them as such. If the state recognizes gay marriage, God will not in turn do so (Just because the state recognizes various religions this does not mean they are true religions. Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists may say they are saved but that does not mean that God recognizes their claim. The same goes for “Christians”.). Furthermore, I say that a marriage begins when two people decide that they will be married. It is a decision that God has made in eternity and is recognized by the couple together temporally (which is why there is no marriage in glory). Therefore, a true divorce during the betrothal period is just as bad as a divorce during the midst of a lifetime of marriage.

“You can show them through exposition how the husband is the provider. I would argue that no wedding should take place if the wife has to work outside the home to support the family.”

You can also show them through Scripture that God does not mind for wives to be providers. Read Proverbs 31, for example, though there are numerous other examples.

But what if the woman has to work inside the home to support the family? What if the woman has to work outside in the fields or garden to support the family? What is the difference from working outside and inside the home? I know women (and men) who have computer jobs that pay them wages but do not require them to leave their homes. Is it okay for a wife to support the family if she remains inside the home? What does “support” mean? (Monetary or non-monetary?) If the wife is supporting the family in order to aid the ministry of her family, is that wrong?

EARNEST:

In Jeremiah 3, the background is Deut. 24:1-4. Now, does this verse speak of the allowance of divorce, or the defilement of receiving again the defiled wife? The latter, I would argue. If it was permitted, why then would she be defiled? As Jesus struck down the idea that this was permitted by God, we must view Jer. 3 in the same light. Is God showing the adulterous tendencies of Israel, and that she has now, finally (this is the last straw, I mean it this time) become undeserving of God’s mercy and forgiveness? Or is it that she was not of God to begin with? Did she break an unbreakable covenant (see Jer 33:23-26)? No. God asked for her repentance in Jer 3.. The point is that God was issuing a judgment of permanent exile to the disobedient tribe- otherwise, why keep Judah?

Take care to observe this verse:

Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."

It is not good practice to try to determine doctrinal stands from exceptions, or merely "hard-to-work-out" circumstances. I believe to insinuate that a marriage can be thought of as not binding because God doesn’t recognize it as such is dangerous and contrary to the verse I cited above. But, you went on to answer your own question. The covenant of marriage is bound by the intent of the couple and their witness to each other before and with God. It takes three: man, woman, God

Malachi 2:13-16 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 “For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”

To simply answer your objections (prior to your own answer), if a man and woman intend to marry, and they believe they are witnesses to each other and before God, they are married. Furthermore, being that a biblical marriage is between a man and woman, and the state sanctioned marriages exist in that manner as well, why would they not fall under God’s law for marriage since they are condemned by those same laws? And, the sexual union has no bearing on the efficacy of the marriage covenant, as it exists symbolically as the picture of a one-flesh union, and practically as the means by which husband and wife glorify God in procreation.

"If two unbelieving teens marry just out of high school and divorce a few months later and the man later becomes a believer and remarries and lives a blameless life with the same wife until their deaths, which marriage will God honor, the first or the second? Was the second marriage adulterous or the first?"

The first, if they remained faithful. The second is adulterous. Matthew 19:9 “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

"Furthermore, I say that a marriage begins when two people decide that they will be married."

Do they decide by their own sinful emotions and feelings; their “rational” minds and wisdom? Or do they decide by their actions?

"Therefore, a true divorce during the betrothal period is just as bad as a divorce during the midst of a lifetime of marriage."

I presume this is an attempt to discredit the “betrothal view” proponents. Be careful who you condemn among those who determined to divorce during the betrothal period: “And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.” (Matt 1:19; cf Mal 3:16).

The rest…

See Gen 2:18; 1 Tim 2:8-15; 1 Tim 5:8; and that man was cursed at his purpose (Gen 3).

Providing=provision

The proverbs 31 woman worked inside the home to be frugal and wise in her dealings. Her PRIMARY concern was for her home. Man provides for his wife and family just as God provides for His children, Jesus provides for the church. If the wife provides to support the ministry, that is called pragmatism. If God’s will was for that ministry, would He not provide? That a woman has to provide for her family? It can happen- husband ill, etc. But should not the church step in at that point, esp. if she is a mother?

"What is the difference from working outside and inside the home?"

The home.

What we in America view as necessary to “support” the family is in most cases a perversion of the definition of “need.” Are we building homes or houses?

Great questions.

FRANK:

"In Jeremiah 3, the background is Deut. 24:1-4. Now, does this verse speak of the allowance of divorce, or the defilement of receiving again the defiled wife? The latter, I would argue. If it was permitted, why then would she be defiled? As Jesus struck down the idea that this was permitted by God, we must view Jer. 3 in the same light. Is God showing the adulterous tendencies of Israel, and that she has now, finally (this is the last straw, I mean it this time) become undeserving of God’s mercy and forgiveness? Or is it that she was not of God to begin with? Did she break an unbreakable covenant (see Jer 33:23-26)? No. God asked for her repentance in Jer 3.. The point is that God was issuing a judgment of permanent exile to the disobedient tribe- otherwise, why keep Judah?"

But I was not referring to the OT. Israel, for her frequent adulteries, the last straw was their adultery with the Torah over and against the Word of God (i.e., the Son of God, Christ Jesus the Messiah). THIS was the final straw, so to speak, that gave the Lord the final authority under the covenant relationship to let Israel go (again, the Lord did not abandon Israel; Israel abandoned the Lord for another “god”.).

"Take care to observe this verse: Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.""

"It is not good practice to try to determine doctrinal stands from exceptions, or merely "hard-to-work-out" circumstances. I believe to insinuate that a marriage can be thought of as not binding because God doesn’t recognize it as such is dangerous and contrary to the verse I cited above. But, you went on to answer your own question. The covenant of marriage is bound by the intent of the couple and their witness to with God. It takes three: man, woman, God."

Yes, exceptions do not determine doctrinal stands but they 1) give us knowledge of the extent of particular doctrines applicability and 2) where other doctrines then apply when other doctrines do not. Such doctrinal problems may lead to times of confusion and uncertainty on which doctrines to apply at certain situations. But such times of uncertainty are supposed to lead us to God. And such uncertainties regarding the doctrines of marriage and divorce are like the doctrines regarding salvation. How do we know when we have salvation? More importantly, how do we know when other people have salvation? We do not know their hearts; only God does. If someone after confessing Christ abandons the faith was that person ever really saved? If someone after confessing Christ abandons the faith but, after the Lord’s discipline, comes back to the faith, weren’t they always saved? Yes, it does take man, woman and God; but no one else because no one else is in that relationship and has no knowledge (the secret things of God have not been revealed to them). And, again, this leads to uncertainty but, again, this leads us back to God. But perhaps these exceptions do lead to doctrinal stands because they tell us which doctrine we need to stand by.

"Malachi 2:13-16 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 “For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”"

To simply answer your objections (prior to your own answer), if a man and woman intend to marry, and they believe they are witnesses to each other and before God, they are married. Furthermore, being that a biblical marriage is between a man and woman, and the state sanctioned marriages exist in that manner as well, why would they not fall under God’s law for marriage since they are condemned by those same laws? And, the sexual union has no bearing on the efficacy of the marriage covenant, as it exists symbolically as the picture of a one-flesh union, and practically as the means by which husband and wife glorify God in procreation.

The reason why they may not fall under God’s law for marriage is that God never recognized their marriage. The again, they may actually be in a God-recognized marriage and then they would be in sin by divorcing and be in an adulterous relationship by remarrying.

But if two unbelievers marry but then divorce and then become believers and marry other believers before God in a Christian wedding ceremony, does God recognize the first one or the second marriage? Does the NT doctrinal standard of marriage apply to only believers or also to non-believers?

If an unbelieving man marries an unbelieving woman and they then divorce and the unbelieving man becomes a believer then marries a believing woman and they have children, and if God does in fact only recognize the first marriage and considers the second marriage as adulterous, should that man then divorce his second wife so that he no longer is living in adultery? Could not God forgive the first marriage as adultery and honor the second marriage?

I think you’d agree that such scenarios are relevant because these are not extreme examples but, sadly, real life examples that believers are facing while ministering to the world and, even more sadly, while ministering to other believers in the Church. The more successful we are at evangelizing the lost in our culture the more we are going to be faced with such ethical issues. At the moment, many conservative evangelical groups (Southern Baptists in particular) do not have answers to such questions. Thankfully there are other evangelical groups that do have answers and are ministering to these people.

"If two unbelieving teens marry just out of high school and divorce a few months later and the man later becomes a believer and remarries and lives a blameless life with the same wife until their deaths, which marriage will God honor, the first or the second? Was the second marriage adulterous or the first?"
The first, if they remained faithful. The second is adulterous. Matthew 19:9 “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

No, you are equating the actions of man with the intent of God. Just because someone goes into the ministry does not mean they are called by God. Just because someone claims to be a believer does not mean they have been called by God. And just because a congregation accepts a person as a member of their church (recognizing them as a believer) does not mean that they are recognized by God as such. And just because a congregation excommunicates a person does not mean that God has. However, many people can use Mattthew 16:19 and 18:18 as their proof texts to suggest that all that the local church does is recognized by God. “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” But is this, in fact, the case?

Let us create a scenario:

A couple decides to get married but before they have the marriage ceremony they have sex. Just before the ceremony, problems arise and the couple does not marry. Later on, both of them meet other people and marry and have long marriages until death do part them.

Now because they did not marry the sexual relationship that the couple had would be regarded as adulterous because they married other people. If the couple had married but divorced even a week or day later, the “till-death-do-us-part” marriage that they had after this would always be an adulterous one.

Unfortunately, many conservative groups are making the same mistakes that liberal Christianity did in the 19th and 20th century by their adoption of Thomas Aquinas’ theory of analogia entis to both theological and ethical concepts. The theory holds that there exists a correspondence or analogy between the creation and God which gives the theoretical justification to draw theological and ethical conclusions from the known objects and relationships of the natural order concerning God. It is certainly debatable whether there is any truth to this theory but it was one of liberal Christianity’s bases for rejecting miracles, the incarnation, the Trinity and any other Christian doctrine whose rationality was beyond the understanding of man.

Too often what liberals meant by “creation” was “the human experience of their reality in creation”. To make theological and ethical decisions based upon the human experience of their reality in creation is fraught with danger. Whether or not there is any validity to the analogia entis theory, the method is flawed by our human natures which are sinful, finite and culturally biased. We are incapable of accurately making such analogies; only God can. Now conservatives do something very similar. We base our theories of what God means by something in the Scriptures based upon our own human experience of our reality in creation. For example: we base our theories of what God considers to be marriage by what we consider marriage to be. We do not distinguish between our identification and definition of reality and God’s. This extends itself to the practice of equating our interpretation of Scripture with the meaning of Scripture and those two are not always the same. While it is certainly the case “that no prophecy” (or any aspect)” of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20), such a practice plays itself out among individual believers and bodies of believers. We must always be aware of man’s general tendency to associate his reality and its interpretation with the reality of God and His interpretation.

“‘Furthermore, I say that a marriage begins when two people decide that they will be married.’ Do they decide by their own sinful emotions and feelings; their “rational” minds and wisdom? Or do they decide by their actions?”

They decide by their sinful emotions and their sinful “rational” minds and sinful wisdom and, of course, they decide by their own sinful actions. Even in a sanctified believer sin affects every aspect of their soul. Two people can sin by getting married. Does God always honor a marriage of sin whose initiation was contrary to His will? If so, God is dependent upon humans for which marriages he honors and which he doesn’t. If this is then the case then NO ONE ever marries the wrong person.

"Therefore, a true divorce during the betrothal period is just as bad as a divorce during the midst of a lifetime of marriage."

"I presume this is an attempt to discredit the “betrothal view” proponents. Be careful who you condemn among those who determined to divorce during the betrothal period: “And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.” (Matt 1:19; cf Mal 3:16)."

No, I am saying that if God in eternity predestines a couple to marry then a divorce during a betrothal period is just as heinous to God as a divorce during a marriage. Just because Joseph was a good and just man and was doing what he did for the right reasons does not mean that what he was doing was right. That God stopped him from doing it suggests that he was doing the wrong thing. Good people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

But let me add this point: in our culture we do not “divorce” during the betrothal period. In American culture, divorce is a legal breakup of a marriage. Since under our culture’s laws a betrothal is not a legally binding period, we do not have “divorce” during this period in our culture. Since our culture does not recognize this particular cultural custom does divorce during then betrothal then not apply to us? Regardless, we should not base our understanding of what constitutes a marriage based upon the laws of our culture.

But really, when does a marriage begin? When the couple agrees to marriage? When all the state legal forms are married? When the ceremony takes place? When the marriage is “consummated”? How is a marriage “consummated”? Such questions must answered before we can then say whether or not a “divorce” has or can taken place.

"Providing=provision
The proverbs 31 woman worked inside the home to be frugal and wise in her dealings. Her PRIMARY concern was for her home."

Yes, she worked inside the home but she also worked outside the home just as the husband works both outside the home and inside. Frugal in her dealings? Yes, but her dealings are outside the home. The Scriptures are pretty clear here that a good wife can work outside the home.

v. 13 - “She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.”
v. 14 - “She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.”
v. 16 - “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.”
v. 18 - “She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night.”
v. 24 - “She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.”

Now do I believe that a good wife has to work outside the home? Of course not. No more than a good wife has to have female servant (v. 15)

The point that the author is saying is not that a good wife must work outside the home but that if she does she must be good about it.

"Man provides for his wife and family just as God provides for His children, Jesus provides for the church. If the wife provides to support the ministry, that is called pragmatism. If God’s will was for that ministry, would He not provide?"

You have made the perfect point. Well said. And if I believed that wives were prohibited by God from “supporting” the family from outside of the “home” then I would certainly agree with the principle you set forth and so guide others.

However, I do not believe that God so prohibits wives. And my belief is not from Scriptural silence on the issue (though for orthodox believers this should be reason enough) but because of explicit evidence such as Proverbs 31.

"That a woman has to provide for her family? It can happen- husband ill, etc. But should not the church step in at that point, esp. if she is a mother."

Yes, the Church should step in. If not them, then our government should do so.

Q: “What is the difference from working outside and inside the home?” A: The home.

Ah, so just as long as she makes money inside the home she can work at a job. Now the husband is to work outside the home … can he still earn money by working if he does so inside the home?

What we in America view as necessary to “support” the family is in most cases a perversion of the definition of “need.” Are we building homes or houses?

That depends upon the particular situation. Some wives do not have to work outside the home but some do.

I do not know of any Christian leader, pastor or scholar (even among the fundamentalist movement!) that advocates such a view. Certainly our SBC leaders and seminary administrators do not hold such a view (at least publicly). You appear to hold Piper in high regard – I’ve never heard or read him advocating such a view. I’ve re-reviewed both Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” and Piper and Grudem’s “Recovering Biblical Manhood” – I don’t see this view advocated.

I think I’m going to have to see some Scriptural evidence to support this theory.

Though this is obviously not the case with you, I do know many individuals in the Southern states who grew up with an idealistic view of the home which included a stay-at–home mom. This is an idealism which they inherited from their grandparents (though there grandparents never actually practiced it themselves) because of fond childhood memories an ergonomic shift in the agriculture centers of the country during the early industrial era of the late 19th that on one hand prevented women from working on farms, but, on the other hand, allowed early feminists to campaign for the prohibition of women (and children) industrial workers due to unsafe conditions - a prohibition that later feminist groups have sought to retract. Though this ideal was rarely if ever a reality, these many individuals hold this scenario as an ideal and then assume that since this is an ideal that it must be God’s will and His ideal even though God does not offer such a scenario.

You've made some excellent points.

EARNEST:

"How do we know when we have salvation? More importantly, how do we know when other people have salvation? We do not know their hearts; only God does. If someone after confessing Christ abandons the faith was that person ever really saved?"

In the Bible. 1 John 2:3-6 is an example:
3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

and

John 8:31So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

When you evangelize, and the person says they know god, do you leave them be? Don’t you ask about Christ? Don’t you talk about James 2:19 when they say they believe Christ is God’s Son? If you can’t know anything, why do you either not evangelize, or evangelize every single person, including me?

"Does the NT doctrinal standard of marriage apply to only believers or also to non-believers?"

Samaritan woman- Jesus recognized her what? Yes, five HUSBANDS. (John 4:18) 1 Peter 3:1, were they not married since the husband doesn’t believe and didn’t notify God of his decision to wed? Paul says they are married. This is a ridiculous philosophical postulate that is clearly refuted from passages recognizing that others (yes, outside the faith) are married..

"Could not God forgive the first marriage as adultery and honor the second marriage?"

Adultery? Two single people can commit adultery? Interesting. And, …no. Reference Jesus’ own words about remarriage.

"I think you’d agree that such scenarios are relevant because these are not extreme examples but, sadly, real life examples that believers are facing while ministering to the world and, even more sadly, while ministering to other believers in the Church. The more successful we are at evangelizing the lost in our culture the more we are going to be faced with such ethical issues. At the moment, many conservative evangelical groups (Southern Baptists in particular) do not have answers to such questions."

Dude! I thought you were joking this whole time! The Bible certainly has the answers to these questions. All the scenarios you posited presuppose your own philosophical foundations. Hey, the Bible does not say that sex constitutes marriage!! Premarital sex does not bind a woman and man for life, therefore no adultery.

"While it is certainly the case “that no prophecy” (or any aspect)” of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20), such a practice plays itself out among individual believers and bodies of believers. We must always be aware of man’s general tendency to associate his reality and its interpretation with the reality of God and His interpretation."

That is what you have spent the past 20 minutes doing. If you noticed, you use zero scriptural evidence for your arguments. The closest you get is “its in the Bible.” You also picked the part of Deut 29:29 you liked, which is always what moderates go for when I quote it. “…so that I might observe all the COMMANDS OF THIS LAW…” (Deut 29:29). God’s secret things are secret- hence, we don’t presuppose them, or conjure up scenarios about them. The things revealed- namely, the commands- are WHAT WE LIVE BY! Therefore, open your Bible, and pull from scripture.

"If this is then the case then NO ONE ever marries the wrong person."

Is there one right person? Is there a “right” person? Scripture reference, please.

"That God stopped him from doing it suggests that he was doing the wrong thing. Good people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons."

No sir, it suggests that God had plans to make His glory known through Joseph’s marriage to Mary. Joseph was just- “since he was a just man”- which clearly is showing that he was not doing anything wrong! Because he was just, he was going to do this… And, curious, what right reasons do people do wrong things?

"Since our culture does not recognize this particular cultural custom does divorce during then betrothal then not apply to us?"

Betrothal view proponents argue yes, not binding- can’t get divorced for any reason.

v. 13 - “She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.”
v. 14 - “She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.”
v. 16 - “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.”
v. 18 - “She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night.”
v. 24 - “She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.”

She was frugal and shrewd in her dealings outside the home. Does your wife buy food? Does she trade, sell? These things all took place when her clear emphasis was her home. Furthermore, she is not the provider and protector, but the helper- and a near perfect one. Is this not a suitable role for the helper in the home economy? We are not arguing for solitary confinement here. What other passages are you alluding to to support your view?

"then our government should do so"

Pragmatism and idleness, and bad theology- YOU should NEVER desire the government to do so because it profanes the name of God.

"Ah, so just as long as she makes money inside the home she can work at a job. Now the husband is to work outside the home … can he still earn money by working if he does so inside the home?"

Once again, it is about being the provider, not an issue of whether she can work or not. Is a career more valuable than her influence on her children? Any woman who believes her children are better off in daycare has believed a lie.

"I do not know of any Christian leader, pastor or scholar (even among the fundamentalist movement!) that advocates such a view. Certainly our SBC leaders and seminary administrators do not hold such a view (at least publicly)."

XXXXXX does, for starters. Now you know one.

On Piper, read this.

On any further comments, please keep them to the point and brief. It is now 12:30 AM, and my quiet time starts at 5. I have much to do. Why did I respond? Because I fear for the trap you have fallen into. You have much philosophy to speak about, but very little with scriptural basis or evidence. Furthermore, as a “teacher,” you have volunteered yourself for a greater judgment. Take great pains to determine whether or not your theology is sound. I contend that it is not only unsound, but it is dangerous. I enjoy the interaction, but you must reevaluate your doctrine according to the Bible before you go any further.

FRANK:

"When you evangelize, and the person says they know god, do you leave them be? Don’t you ask about Christ? Don’t you talk about James 2:19 when they say they believe Christ is God’s Son? If you can’t know anything, why do you either not evangelize, or evangelize every single person, including me?"

I witness to everyone. Those who do not confess Christ I attempt to introduce them to Him. Those who confess Christ but show no fruit I ask them to check their hearts and their relationship with God. Those who confess Christ and do show fruit I continue to witness to and disciple and many of them do the same with me.

"Samaritan woman- Jesus recognized her what? Yes, five HUSBANDS. (John 4:18) 1 Peter 3:1, were they not married since the husband doesn’t believe and didn’t notify God of his decision to wed? Paul says they are married. This is a ridiculous philosophical postulate that is clearly refuted from passages recognizing that others (yes, outside the faith) are married."

What philosophical postulate?

"Adultery? Two single people can commit adultery? Interesting. And, …no. Reference Jesus’ own words about remarriage."

If we believe that God predestines marriages in eternity and if someone commits a sexual act with someone who God did not ordain them to marry then that person is committing adultery even before they meet their spouse. To use the salvation example: if a person before becoming a believer worships a false god and does not worship the true God then that person has committed “idolatry/adultery” against God who predestined them to a relationship with Him.

Also, Matthew 5:28 – “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

"Dude! I thought you were joking this whole time! The Bible certainly has the answers to these questions."

Of course the Bible has the answers to these questions but we need to know how to apply the principles therein. If we misapply the teachings on adultery and divorce we are no better than the person who doesn’t apply any Biblical principles at all.

"All the scenarios you posited presuppose your own philosophical foundations."

No. I have very little philosophical tenants to my foundation. Philosophy is man-made and highly suspect. At most, I use philosophical theories as examples to communicate Scriptural truths. Occasionally, I use philosophical tenants as a hermeneutic ONLY for applicational purposes. My foundational worldview comes from the Word of God and nothing else.

"Hey, the Bible does not say that sex constitutes marriage!! Premarital sex does not bind a woman and man for life, therefore no adultery."

That sex doesn’t constitute marriage is true. But that someone can commit adultery against the spouse God has chosen for them is true even if they do not yet know who that person yet is. Again, Matthew 5:28. Just lusting after another woman who isn’t your wife is adultery. If a single man who never marries has sex with a woman who is married to someone else then he has committed adultery. If a single man who never marries has sex with a single woman who later marries than he still has committed adultery. If a single man who never marries has sex with a single woman who never marries than they both still have committed adultery. Why? Because they are having sexual relations with a person who is not their spouse. Just like idolatry is a relation to a “god” who is not Lord God.

"That is what you have spent the past 20 minutes doing. If you noticed, you use zero scriptural evidence for your arguments. The closest you get is “its in the Bible.” You also picked the part of Deut 29:29 you liked, which is always what moderates go for when I quote it. “…so that I might observe all the COMMANDS OF THIS LAW…” (Deut 29:29). God’s secret things are secret- hence, we don’t presuppose them, or conjure up scenarios about them. The things revealed- namely, the commands- are WHAT WE LIVE BY! Therefore, open your Bible, and pull from scripture."

All my arguments come from Scripture. When you’ve asked me for citations, I’ve given it to you.

Me, a moderate? Ask my wife; I do not do anything in moderation.
But (pardon me), just because you can cite a passage does not mean that the passage is applicable to the situation.

Some things are secret to some that are not secret to others. How God has worked in your life and what your personal relationship is like with God is secret to me and vice versa. That is between the person and God. I can look at the person’s fruit but I cannot know for certain the degree of their relationship with God; it’s a secret. But it’s certainly not a secret to the person in that relationship.

Yes, we live by his commands but we do not live by his non-commands. As evidence, just because the Bible doesn’t say that we can do something doesn’t mean that we cannot. When the Scriptures are silent on an issue than we must be tolerant of the secret.

"Is there one right person? Is there a “right” person? Scripture reference, please."

Well, if God wants us to marry someone in particular (so much so that He joins them together – Matt 19:6) then God has the right person for that person. If God tells us not to marry someone and we disobey God, then have we not married the wrong person? Solomon had hundreds of wives, many of them were non-believers (1 King 11:1) but Solomon married women the Lord told him not to (11:2-11). He disobeyed the Lords’ prior command and did so even after being reprimanded. If he married the persons that God told him not to, then did he not marry the wrong persons? If there is a wrong person, is there not a right person?

"No sir, it suggests that God had plans to make His glory known through Joseph’s marriage to Mary. Joseph was just- “since he was a just man”- which clearly is showing that he was not doing anything wrong! Because he was just, he was going to do this… And, curious, what right reasons do people do wrong things?"

So … Joseph decided to do something. God told him not to do it. But what he was going to do that God told him not to do was okay to do. So if Joseph had done what God had told him not to do then he would still have done the right thing. It’s kind of like Kierkeggard’s “suspension of the ethical” in reverse (see Fear and Trembling). God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham disobeys God and does not sacrifice his son and has done the right thing. God tells Hosea to marry a harlot, Hosea disobeys God and does not marry a harlot and has done the right thing. God tells Peter to eat from “unclean” animals, Peter disobeys God and does not eat from “unclean” animals and has done the right thing. God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus disobeys God and does not heal on the Sabbath and has done the right thing.

Mainly, I think, the reason people do the wrong thing for the right reasons is that these are “immature believers” with such little faith/trust in the knowledge that God can do what He wants without their help, that they feel obligated to set the world “right” by measures disagreeable to the gospel message.

Examples: To try to “Christianize” Muslims by Crusades and Inquisition. To try to preserve doctrinal fidelity 1) inquisition, 2) by firing people who disagree with their methods of preserving doctrinal fidelity. To try to engage the culture for Christ by trying to get conservative judges appointed. To try to evangelize by “watering down” the gospel. To try to preserve the fidelity of the Scriptural witness by forcing literal truths into figurative passages. By trying to love one another by not admonishing sins such as adultery, divorce, homosexuality and pride.

"She was frugal and shrewd in her dealings outside the home. Does your wife buy food? Does she trade, sell? These things all took place when her clear emphasis was her home. Furthermore, she is not the provider and protector, but the helper- and a near perfect one. Is this not a suitable role for the helper in the home economy? We are not arguing for solitary confinement here. What other passages are you alluding to to support your view?"

So … a wife can do all the things that a woman working outside the home as long as her emphasis in on the home but just as long as she is not providing for the home? Scripture?

Well, considering that I am arguing that the Scriptures do not prevent a woman from working outside the home and you say that it does, isn’t the burden of proof on you to show such evidence otherwise? Even if the Proverbs 31 is not evidence (which it is), your position (without Scriptural evidence) is an argument from silence.

""then our government should do so"
Pragmatism and idleness, and bad theology- YOU should NEVER desire the government to do so because it profanes the name of God."

Scripture? Scripture?

"Once again, it is about being the provider, not an issue of whether she can work or not. Is a career more valuable than her influence on her children? Any woman who believes her children are better off in daycare has believed a lie."
Scripture? Scripture? Scripture?

"On any further comments, please keep them to the point and brief. It is now 12:30 AM, and my quiet time starts at 5. I have much to do. Why did I respond? Because I fear for the trap you have fallen into. You have much philosophy to speak about, but very little with scriptural basis or evidence. Furthermore, as a “teacher,” you have volunteered yourself for a greater judgment. Take great pains to determine whether or not your theology is sound. I contend that it is not only unsound, but it is dangerous. I enjoy the interaction, but you must reevaluate your doctrine according to the Bible before you go any further."

Well, I would disagree that I do have no Scriptural basis for my understanding of Scripture, but I do understand your concern and it is appreciated.

No, my theology is quite sound; it is Scriptural, orthodox, and conservative.

Yes, quite enjoyable. You’re a good man. It’s been fun.

EARNEST:

You have yet to tell me the good news of the gospel. How do you know I am saved? Should I make a “decision” to follow Christ daily, then get Baptized daily? You know there are lines here, because Paul himself entrusted Timothy and others to pass on their faith handed down to them. Paul knew Timothy was saved. Paul knew Barnabas was saved.

If everyone commits adultery (Matt 5:28), which I agree with, and agree that everyone does, then your argument has fallen flat. This was my point exactly- there is no need to hypothesize about premarital sex. Everyone is an adulterer. That leaves you to get the “feeling” as to which marriage God has recognized. Or, since the act is already committed, why does it matter now? Is it that God recognizes no marriage wherein any spouse is convicted by Matt 5:28? All marriages are adulterous! (Single persons, therefore, have committed adultery against God).

"Some things are secret to some that are not secret to others"

How about the things that are clearly revealed to all of us? And guess what, God has REVEALED himself to us. We have the full counsel of written revelation. He has not ordained us to live in the dark, but in the light of revelation, being an imitator of Christ.

What your not getting is this: a marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. God is witness to all marriages because it is His institution, but not solely intended for the elect. A man’s covenant to take his wife and be faithful to her is witnessed by God, not recognized/unrecognized by God. Therefore the man is now bound under God’s law and design for marriage, like he is in all areas of his life. If he divorces, he sins, and breaks his promise to his wife. If he remarries, he is an adulterer in the physical and moral sense.

"If God tells us not to marry someone and we disobey God, then have we not married the wrong person?"

Please! Does God tell you what car to buy? Does he tell you what shirt to wear? This is in no relation to your argument about a preordained “right” person to marry. It is not as if he determines your course by His will and you subvert it and marry another= open theism. His will is done. Granted, you can marry for the wrong reasons, etc. But you are bound by your covenant to your wife, and must still obey the commands of Scripture regarding her, and live with the consequences. When all is said and done, you are still actualizing the will of God.

"Abraham disobeys God and does not sacrifice his son"

What!? Oh, you mean his only son, right? You mean on the mountain where the Lord would provide the sacrifice?

"God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus disobeys God and does not heal on the Sabbath and has done the right thing."

?????????

Pv 31 is my scriptural support, that is what I was showing you.

I still believe you are severely lacking in tying great Scriptural truths together, namely the will of God, His full revelation to us, His preordaining and His sovereign will/decree, and the nature of the marriage covenant as it relates to all men’s responsibilities.


FRANK:

"You have yet to tell me the good news of the gospel."

I suspect that we might have different beliefs on the nature of the Gospel. But I always tell people the Gospel message: The Kingdom of God is here!

"How do you know I am saved? Should I make a “decision” to follow
Christ daily[?]"

Luke 9:23 – “And he said to [them] all, ‘If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.’”

Given the opportunity, I choose each day to follow Christ.

"then get Baptized daily?"

Baptized daily? Yes, but not spiritually and not symbolically; though I am more a “pourer” in my daily routine (that’s a joke). Seriously, baptism is an act of obedience that symbolizes the act like that which is taken in Luke 9:23.

"You know there are lines here, because Paul himself entrusted Timothy and others to pass on their faith handed down to them. Paul knew Timothy was saved. Paul knew Barnabas was saved."

Are you inferring that? The disciples thought Judas was saved and entrusted him with the “offering”.

Are you saying that Paul trusted them in their salvation security?
I have always liked Chapter 15 of John Piper’s book “Brothers, We Are Not Professionals”, which is called “Brothers, Save the Saints” (pp. 105-111). He uses two verse from 1-2 Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:16 – “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”

2 Timothy 2:10 – “Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
Piper also cites Phil. 2:12 (one of my favourite verses); James 5:19-20; 1 Cor. 8:9, 11; 15:17-18; 1 John 2:19 ;1 Pet. 2:2; Heb, 2:1; 3:14; 5:9; 2 Tim. 3:15.

Piper, as we all know, believes in eternal security but he also knows that he must “save the saints” as well, lest some should fall away. I think Paul (like Piper) had more faith in God then he had in either Barnabas or Timothy. He knew they (an others) would “hand down” the faith correctly because of his faith in the sovereignty of God and not the wills or claims of men.
If someone makes a profession of faith in Christ, then I assume that the person is a believer. If someone does not make such a profession, then I assume that the person is not. But many who say,” Lord! Lord” are not really “saved”, but I would NEVER publicly state my suspicions even concerning people who “bear no fruit”. I take the presence of profession but the absence of fruit as a sign of immaturity. Even with both fruit and profession, I continue to “preach” and “disciple” (in terms of discipline); I would expect others to do the same with me lest either of us should fall due to unchecked sin.

"If everyone commits adultery (Matt 5:28), which I agree with, and agree that everyone does, then your argument has fallen flat. This was my point exactly- there is no need to hypothesize about premarital sex. Everyone is an adulterer. That leaves you to get the “feeling” as to which marriage God has recognized. Or, since the act is already committed, why does it matter now? Is it that God recognizes no marriage wherein any spouse is convicted by Matt 5:28? All marriages are adulterous! (Single persons, therefore, have committed adultery against God)."

See above for my previous answers to these questions and comments.

"“Some things are secret to some that are not secret to others.”
How about the things that are clearly revealed to all of us? And guess what, God has REVEALED himself to us. We have the full counsel of written revelation."

“Clearly” revealed? Quite a subjective subject. Yes, God has revealed Himself and many other things to us.

This leaves us with two questions:

1) What is it God has revealed?
2) How then do we interpret what God has revealed?

These are not simple questions and good conservative believers can differ on the answers.

"He has not ordained us to live in the dark, but in the light of revelation, being an imitator of Christ."

And we don’t “live in the dark”. We have Christ and other revelations (Scripture, traditions, subjective experiences, etc.) But not everything is “clear” and it is in areas such as these that we must go back to the Scriptures to find our answers. And we ALL get some things wrong. This in itself should give us pause to ALWAYS return to Scripture.

What your not getting is this: a marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. God is witness to all marriages because it is His institution, but not solely intended for the elect. A man’s covenant to take his wife and be faithful to her is witnessed by God, not recognized/unrecognized by God. Therefore the man is now bound under God’s law and design for marriage, like he is in all areas of his life. If he divorces, he sins, and breaks his promise to his wife. If he remarries, he is an adulterer in the physical and moral sense.

I think you have a somewhat liberal (perhaps man-centered) view of marriage. You seem to believe that marriage is based upon man’s recognition and not God’s. Let me give an example from salvation:

A Jew who rejects Christ states that he is “saved” by God. He says that he is saved by God and simultaneously rejects the notion that God was in Christ. A Christian would argue, “No, you are not saved because salvation requires that one not reject Christ.” The Jews replies, “No, salvation by God does not require that I not reject Christ. I reject Christ and am saved by God.”
Now simply because the Jew states that he is saved by such conditions and may really believe this to be the case does not automatically make it so.
Similarly, simply because two people say they are married does not automatically make them married.

"Please! Does God tell you what car to buy? Does he tell you what shirt to wear? This is in no relation to your argument about a preordained “right” person to marry. It is not as if he determines your course by His will and you subvert it and marry another= open theism. His will is done. Granted, you can marry for the wrong reasons, etc. But you are bound by your covenant to your wife, and must still obey the commands of Scripture regarding her, and live with the consequences. When all is said and done, you are still actualizing the will of God."

No, for all my major decisions I seek God for His guidance, and if I sense God is telling me something about (what I perceive to be) a minor decision, then I seek His will; a minor decision may soon turn out to have been a major one. God tells me what to do and not to do; I do not always obey but I am sure obeying a lot more than I did than when I didn’t ask Him. And my relationship with God has grown because of my seeking His guidance.

Would “marrying” a person of the same sex be considered God’s will or is that just marrying for the wrong reasons? If then the gay couple then become Christians must they stay “married” to each other because they are “bound” by the covenant of marriage? Must they not obey the commands of Scripture regarding marriage even though they are then a gay couple? Maybe they were sinners when they married but (as long as they do not commit homosexual acts) must they maintain their covenant marriage relationship which is only them “actualizing the will of God”?

A “just man” can divorce his wife for adultery and be within the law of God. But, as the Joseph story so indicates, the laws of God are not always universal. If Joseph had divorced Mary for adultery according to the LAW of God but disobeyed the “angel” who was speaking for God, he would have been “unjust”. Why? Because not all divorce for the cause of adultery is God’s will but it is allowed in God’s law.

"It is not as if he determines your course by His will and you subvert it and marry another= open theism."

Let me deal with this particular point by itself:

God’s will is for married couples to remain un-divorced. A person who divorces his wife (for unbiblical reasons): is he subverting God’s will? Granted, he’s divorced for wrong reasons but he is also divorcing the wrong person.

Now the hypothetical gay “married” couple that I mentioned above: they would be both divorcing for the right reasons and divorcing the right person. Here is a situation (if we agree that this hypothetical gay “married” couple is indeed married) in which divorcing for a cause other than adultery would be a correct course of action.

What are the other possible answers?
1) They are not really married.
2) They ARE in fact committing adultery.

“Abraham disobeys God and does not sacrifice his son”
What!? Oh, you mean his only son, right? You mean on the mountain where the Lord would provide the sacrifice?

Yes, this was a hypothetical scenario.

Abraham (as a just man) knew that human sacrifice was wrong. God told him to sacrifice a human, something which we do not expect God to command us to do because such an act is a sin. God normally does not command someone to sin. Yet, if Abraham had said, “No, God; I’m not going to so as you now command and commit human sacrifice, rather I am going to do as you have commanded in your Law and not commit human sacrifice.” Now if Abraham had said and done this, would he have been JUST?

“God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus disobeys God and does not heal on the Sabbath and has done the right thing.”
?????????

See above. The Law says man is to rest on the Sabbath and not work. Jesus works, heals, walks, etc. on the Sabbath. If God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath but Jesus refuses to heal on the Sabbath in order to keep God’s Law to not work on the Sabbath, would Jesus had done the right thing? Would he have been JUST?

"Pv 31 is my scriptural support, that is what I was showing you."

Yes, and I was showing you that a woman can work outside the home. That is why I first mentioned this passage.

"I still believe you are severely lacking in tying great Scriptural truths together, namely the will of God, His full revelation to us, His preordaining and His sovereign will/decree, and the nature of the marriage covenant as it relates to all men’s responsibilities."

And I disagree with your assessment of Scripture and your assessment of my assessment of Scripture. But that is okay.
Here are a few final questions and comments of my own:

1) What is a true marriage? You have never said.

2) When does a marriage begin? You have never said.

3) What verses in Scripture support your view that women are not supposed to work outside the home? You have never shown through exposition.

4) You appear to have a very Armenian view of God’s sovereignty, i.e., the actions of man necessitate the will of God. This gives carte blanche for man to marry whomever they so choose and shrug it off as “God’s Will.” This is a very subjective, experiential and liberal view of God’s will that defines it as that which is allowed to occur. This is tantamount to saying, “A woman can be a pastor because a) she currently holds that position and b) has the spiritual gifts of leadership and teaching.” Nonsense! We need to base our understanding of the Faith on Scripture and not experience. Very dangerous!

5) You need to take a closer look at “exceptions” to doctrinal rules. I believe in the absolute Word of God and universal principles that God commands. If God’s command (A) is an absolute truth, then (A) is universal and then not merely a general truth. By saying that it is a universal and not a general truth, one is saying that there are not particular exceptions. If God’s command (B) is a general truth then there are particular exceptions. God’s prohibition against divorce is a general truth with one particular exception, i.e., adultery (C). But from this we get a universal: the universal truth (A) is that the general truth (B) has only one particular exception (C).

Now how do we define marriage? I believe that a definition of marriage can be pin-pointed (my presupposition). We can say that marriage = (X). Therefore, if marriage = (X). Then anything that is not (X) is not marriage. Example: gay “marriage” (X=+1) or incestual “marriage” (X-1) is not marriage. These examples are not marriage because they do not fulfill the definition of what it means to be married.

Therefore, the question becomes what is a marriage? If the situation is an exception to the rule then perhaps there are other rules that apply in this situation. If not, we must then abandon the sufficiency of the Scripture doctrine. I’m not willing to do that.

An exception to a doctrine means that the doctrine doesn’t apply to the situation. If the doctrine doesn’t apply, then we are working with the wrong doctrine and there is a better doctrine to be applied (My presupposition here is that of the conservative and orthodox position that the Scriptures are inspired, infallible, inerrant and sufficient: if the doctrine doesn’t apply then search the Scriptures for the one that does.).

But, more important to my point, WHY doesn’t this doctrine apply? My contention is that the doctrine doesn’t apply here not because the doctrine is breaking down or that it is not an absolute (another presupposition: I believe in absolutes), but because there is a misapplication of a marriage rule to a non-marriage situation.

We cannot say that God’s universal commands for marriage apply sometime and sometimes do not apply to a true marriage. They either do or do not. We mustn’t take a liberal view of Scripture. Scripture is not a matter of one’s own interpretation.


6) You might want to re-examine your view on church and government in light of the following:

On the one hand, you state the following: “Furthermore, being that a biblical marriage is between a man and woman, and the state sanctioned marriages exist in that manner as well, why would they not fall under God’s law for marriage since they are condemned by those same laws?”

On the other hand, when I respond to your statement, “That a woman has to provide for her family? It can happen- husband ill, etc. But should not the church step in at that point, esp. if she is a mother,” with this statement, “Yes, the Church should step in. If not them, then our government should do so,” you counter respond with the following: “Pragmatism and idleness, and bad theology- YOU should NEVER desire the government to do so because it profanes the name of God.”

This appears to be a contradiction in how we are to apply God’s commands in society. Enforcing a Christian view of marriage in society by means of government is OK but it is not OK to enforce a Christian view of poverty in society by means of government.

But how so? We are engaged in a religious-cultural battle in this country over homosexuality, feminism, “creationism”, the “place of God” in national oaths, and numerous other religious issues; yet, we conservative Christians are constantly calling upon our elected leaders to “defend” the Faith by enacting laws and appointing judges that will interpret laws a particular way.

Furthermore, being that a helping the poor (widows, children, destitute wives, the sick and the lame, etc.) is commanded by God in the Bible (Old and New), and the state sanctioned welfare exists in that manner as well, why would the church not applaud the state for following the Word of God by wanting to help the poor?”

7) Finally, you seemed to have had some difficulties with some people in Texas. Aren’t we all having that problem?!

I offer my essay: “The Problem of Atheism and Its Solution: A Call to Abandon Apologetics as an Evangelical Method.”

It might give you some insight into our earlier discussion concerning evangelism.

TOP 50 RESTAURANTS IN THE METROPLEX

Due to popular demand (and valentine's Day celebrations) I have decided to list my Top 50 Favourite Restaurants in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. Here are the restaurants by cuisine with "national", "chain" restaurants in their own, separate category, along with each restaurants phone number, address and even pricing.

$ - $10-20
$$ - $20-40
$$$ - $40-60
$$$$ - $100+

This pricing is based upon a general 2-person dinner. If you are alone (reduce by half) or with more (add by half) you can figure it out yourself.

Of special note: I've highlighted my TOP CHOICES.


Hamburger Places

Chapp’s - $ - 817-263-5172, 6219 Oakmont Blvd., Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Charley's Old Fashioned Hamburgers - $ -
817-731-8000, 1712 Montgomery St, Fort Worth
817-244-5223, 3520 Alta Mere Dr, Fort Worth
817-924-8611, 4616 Granbury Rd, Fort Worth
Jon’s Grille - $ - 817-923-1909, 3009 S University Dr., Fort Worth
Kincaid’s Burgers - $ - 817-732-2881, 4901 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth
Montana Restaurant - $ - 817-573-2500, 1454 E Hwy 377, Granbury


Mexican and Tex-Mex

Blue Mesa Grille - $$ - 817-332-6372, 1600 S University Dr # 609e, Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Cabo Grande - $$ - 817-348-8226, 112 W 2nd, Fort Worth
Joel T. Garcia’s - $$ - 817-626-4356, 2201 N. Commerce St., Fort Worth
Rio Mambos - $$ - (817) 423-3124, 6125 SW Loop 820, Fort Worth


Steakhouses

Cattleman’s - $$$ - 817-624-3945, 2458 N Main St., Fort Worth
H3 Ranch - $$$ - 817-624-1246, 109 E Exchange Ave, Fort Worth
GREAT!!! The Keg - $$$- 817-731-3534, 5760 SW Loop 820, Fort Worth
Old San Francisco Steak House - $$$ - 214-357-0484, 10965 Composite Dr, Dallas
Riscky’s - $$$ - 817-626-7777, 140 E Exchange Ave #101Bm, Fort Worth
Ruth’s Chris Steak House - $$$ - 972-250-2244, 17840, Dallas
Silver Fox - $$$ - 817-332-9060, 1651 S. University Dr., Fort Worth
Texas De Brazil - $$$- 817-882-9500, 101 N. Houston St., Fort Worth
Trail Dust - $$$ - 817-640-6411, 2300 E. Lamar Blvd., Arlington


East Asian

Bamboo Garden - $ - 817-292-9655, 6415 McCart Ave., Fort Worth
Chopstix Express - $ - 817-920-9888, 2105 W. Berry St.
Pei Wei - $$ - 817-294-0808, 5900 Overton Ridge Blvd, Fort Worth
Wok-N-Roll - $ - 817-820-1822, 817-920-7880, 2817 W. Berry St., Fort Worth


Middle Eastern and Indian

King Tuts - $$ - 817-335-3051, 1512 W. Magnolia, Fort Worth
Maharaja - $$ - 817-263-7156, 6308 Hulen Bend Blvd., Fort Worth

British

GREAT!!! Baker Street Pub - $$ - 817-377-9772, 6333 Camp Bowie Blvd., Ft. Worth
GREAT!!! Sherlock’s Baker Street Pub and Grill - $$ - 817-226-2300, N. Collins and I-30 in the Lincoln Square Shopping Center, Arlington


European

Bella Italia - $$ - 817-738-1700, 5139 Camp Bowie, Fort Worth
Escargot - $$$$ - 817-336-3090, 3426 W 7th St, Fort Worth
La Madeleine - $$ - 817-654-0471, 6140 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Niesters Restaurant and Deli - $$$ – 817-573-0211, 4426 E Hwy 377, Granbury
Ristorante la Piazza - $$$$ - 817-334-0000 - 1600 S University Dr, Fort Worth


BBQ

Cousins Pit Barbecue - $ - 817-346-2511, 6262 McCart Ave. Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Red Hot and Blue - $$$ - 817-731-8770, 3000 S. Hulen St. @ Bellaire Dr., Fort Worth


Southern Cooking

Julie’s Fresh Kitchen - $ - (817)263-6070, 6256 McCart Avenue, Fort Worth
Massey’s - $ - 817-921-5582, 1805 8th Avenue, Fort Worth


Chain

Bennigan’s Grill and Tavern - $$ - 817-294-1021, 4833 S Hulen St, Fort Worth
GREAT!!!Chilis - $$ - University-Chili's - 817-429-2002, 1540 S. University Dr., Ft. Worth
Hulen-Chili's - 817-572-1195, 5288 S. Hulen Dr., Ft. Worth
GREAT!!! Don Pablos - $$ - 817-346-3787, 5601 S. Hulen, Ft. Worth
Fuddruckers - $ - 817-263-0996, 5601 Southwest Loop 820, Ft. Worth
Jason's Deli - $- 817-370-9187, 5100 Overton Ridge, Fort Worth, TX
GREAT! Johnny Carinos - $$ - 817/346-4456, 5900 S. Hulen St., Fort Worth
Logan’s - $$ - 817-447-3504, 1125 N. Burleson Blvd., Burleson
Macaroni Grill - $$ - 817-336-6676, 1505 S. University Dr., Fort Worth
Olive Garden - $$ - (817) 377-8091, 4700 SW LOOP 820, FORT WORTH
Outback Steakhouse - $$ - (817) 370-7800, 4608 Bryant Irvin Road, Fort Worth
Pappadeaux - $$ - 817-877-8843, 2708 West Frwy, Fort Worth
Salt Grass - $$ - 817-306-7900, 5845 Sandshell Dr., Fort Worth

Anni favor jubilaei

Anni favor jubilaei
Poenarum laxat debitum,
Post peccatorum vomitum
Et cessandi propositum.
Currant passim omnes rei.
Pro mercede regnum Dei
Levi patet expositum.

First Insights Into The Book Of Joshua

I've started a study on the book of Joshua: here are my first insights.

The book of Joshua on politics:

"Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it [to] the right hand or [to] the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest." (Joshua 1:7)

The book of Joshua on war:

"And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, '[Art] thou for us, or for our adversaries?' And He said, 'Neither; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come.' And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, 'What saith my lord unto his servant?'" (Joshua 5:13-14)


The book of Joshua on leadership:

"Then Joshua commanded the officers of the people: 'Right, good morning children of Israel. My name is Joshua and I'm the new Israelite leader in charge of religious genocide. Now, if you play straight with me you'll find me a considerate commander, but cross me and you'll find that under this playful boyish exterior beats the heart of a ruthless sadistic maniac.'" (Joshua 1:19-21)

We Write In Order To Understand

This is one of my favourite quotes about the writing process:

"First, I do not sit down at my desk to put into verse something that is already clear in my mind. If it were clear in my mind, I should have no incentive or need to write about it. We do not write in order to be understood; we write in order to understand."

-- Robert Cecil Day-lewis (poet)

Panis Circenses' 50 Top Most Influential Christians

I was recently sent this article about the 50 Top Most Influential Christians in America. A friend who sent me the article was upset that R.C. Sproul and John McArthur were not listed. I was somewhat surprised that a few others were not listed. Anyway, I decided to do my own list of most influential Christians. I did not do a Top 50 countdown becasue 1) I wanted something a bit more flexible and 2) I do not actively supprot some of the ministerial tactics that some of these individuals practice but I do need to include them because they are influential. Let it be known that I have included non-Americans.

Here is my criteria list: A still living believer who is influential today. Therefore, I would not but Barth or Brunner since they are dead. I would not but Karen Armstrong or Bishop John Shelby Spong because they are not are believers. I would not but Jim Bakker or Oral Roberts because they are no longer influential. Also, and most importantly, I made sure that my choices did not reflect my own view of who truly is important but, rather, who is actually influential. Regardless, I am highlighting my favourite choices.


Pastors

Pope Benedict XVI
Tony Evans
Jerry Falwell
Bill Hybels
T.D. Jakes
John McArthur
Brian McLaren
Joel Osteen
John Piper
Robert Schuller
Chuck Swindoll
Rick Warren


Writers

Tim LaHaye
Max Lucado
Beth Moore
Jim Wallis
Bruce Wilkinson
Philip Yancey


Scholars

Richard Bauckham
Jim Dunn
Donald Hagner
Richard Hays
N.T. Wright


Theologians

Wayne Grudem
Stanley Hauerwas
Hans Kung
Jurgen Moltmann
Wolfhart Pannenberg
Clark Pinnock
Leonard Sweet


Preachers

Billy Graham
Franklin Graham
Benny Hinn
Joyce Meyer


Other

George Barna
Bono
George W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
Chuck Colson
James Dobson
Mel Gibson
Sean Hannity
Richard Land
John Maxwell
Dr. Phil McGraw
Al Mohler
Bill Moyers
Pat Robertson
Jay Aan Sekulow
Walter Shurden

The Textual Evidence For Jacob Wrestling An Elohiym

A late response to a very good question.

what is your textual evidence for Jacob wresting an "elohiym" besides the presumed implicit water god references regarding the river, morning, etc.

In v. 6 we know that Esau is coming to meet Jacob. In vv 7-8, Jacob panics when he learns of Esau’s approach. Fearing an attack, he divides his caravan into two groups. In v. 9, Jacob prays to God for help, “reminding” God of His promise and that He has told Jacob to go back home to the land of Abraham and Isaac. Now all his servants and family go on ahead and Jacob remains the night just outside the border of his families land at Peniel. Peniel (Penuel) is the just outside of the land of promise and the utmost extent of the land that David conquered.

Jacob is basically returning to the land that will be his inheritance and which was promised to him by God and which he stole from Esau. He is alone and outside of his inheritance and the night before he is about to cross over into that land, someone wrestles with him at night keeping him from entering into that land (There is one theory that Jacob was actually wrestling Esau. It’s an attractive theory but I’m not convinced.).

I am offering 3 credible possibilities to what this “man” (iysh) who wrestled with Jacob was.

1) It is argued that he wrestled with Yahweh. Here are some reasons why I doubt this interpretation.

a) If this was Yahweh that Jacob wrestled with, it is odd that the writer uses the term elohiym or “god”. If this was the Lord, it was an anthropomorphic God. Usually, when God is portrayed with anthropomorphic features He is referred to as Yahweh and not elohiym.

b) The “man” who struggles with Jacob is referred to as a “man” (iysh), which would be unusual to refer to God in that way (but see Genesis 18 for an exception).

c) It’s not at all keeping with the portrayal of Yahweh to behave in this way. Why would Yahweh wrestle with Jacob? How could Jacob wrestle the Creator to a standstill so that Yahweh had to “cheat” in order to win? It seems out of character.

d) Why would Yahweh want to keep Jacob from reaching the land that He promised and in which He told Jacob to go to? This would be even odder because Jacob just spent the previous day praying to Yahweh for help in reaching the land and recalling Yahweh’s promise. Nowhere is Yahweh portrayed as one who tries to break His promise.

e) In the book Hosea, the prophet is interpreting the life of Jacob and refers to the fact that Jacob “wrestled with an angel” (12:4). Only when he later went to Bethel, did Jacob meet God. Hosea wrote his prophecy only some 200 years after the Genesis 32 was written down. It seems that by this time the “angel” interpretation was already common.

2) It is argued that he wrestled with an angel. Here are some reasons why I doubt this interpretation.

b) In Genesis 32:1-2, when at Mahanaim, Jacob sees angels of God and recognizes them as such. The wrestling incident is only a short time later, he refers to the “man” as a “god” and not an “angel”. If he had just seen angels then we presume he would know another one when he sees it.

c) If an “angel of God” was wrestling with Jacob and preventing him from entering into the promise land it would be theologically tantamount to God trying to prevent Jacob from entering the land because “angels of God” do God’s bidding.

d) I doubt that a mere man like Jacob could overpower an angelic being who was doing the will of God.

3) It is argued that he wrestled with an elohiym. Here are some reasons why I prefer this interpretation.

a) That the “man” was trying to prevent Jacob from fulfilling God’s promise suggests to me that it was a malicious being.

b) Jacob refers to the “man” as an elohiym which suggests that this was not a human but a god or spirit of some sort.

c) Hosea refers to this being as an “angel.” This suggests to me that the being was some sort of spirit being, like an angel, only malicious. Probably some form of “fallen angel”.

d) Looking at Canaanite mythology, in the era in which this story takes place, the people of this age and culture did believe in such spirits.

i. Night time was the understood time for spiritual attacks.

ii. Localized spirit-demons were believed to exist in these times. There was an ancient belief the Jabbok river was protected by a localized deity.

iii. Such deities were said to give blessings if they were caught, sort of like the fairy tales of catching gnomes, fairies or leprechauns.


These are the reasons why I think the Scriptures suggest that Jacob wrestled with and elohiym and neither God nor ones of His angels.

For more info on this episode, I suggest reading Nahum Sarna’s book Understanding Genesis.

Updated: The End of the Spear ***

The missus and I went to see this film this weekend. It really was a wonderful film that was very enjoyable. The first 20 minutes are somewhat boring, but, after that, the film picks up and doesn't look back. A very good film that represents some very good Christian values: peace, sacrifice, love, forgiveness, cooperation and courage. Do not let the Baptist Press disuade you from seeing this film; it really is worth the price of admission.

Theological Synopsis:

Native groups keep dying at the “end of a spear”. Rival clans, families and sons keep avenging the deaths of fathers and et al. This leads to a vicious cycle of violence. Missionaries visit the natives in hopes of ending the killing. The natives kill the missionaries. The widows of the missionaries (and one son in particular) go back and help the natives. The natives are surprised that the families are “turning the other cheek”. The missionary widows tell the natives that the Creator-God-Father had a Son who taught not to kill. Others were angry that the Son was preaching that the Creator was teaching not to kill. The others killed the Son on the end of the spear. The Son turned the other cheek. The Creator-God-Father turned the other cheek. Some of the natives listen to the missionary widows and stop killing. Most of the natives want to continue killing other natives. When other natives get sick with polio, the missionary widows and some of the natives “turn the other cheek” and help these natives. This act of love ends the killing among the different native groups. Slowly the native groups who are upset about the end of the killing adapt into the new way and even the head native who killed the father of the missionary boy’s father becomes a believer. When the boy becomes an adult, the head native tells him that it was he who killed his father and the head native wants the grown missionary boy to avenge his father and kill the head native at the end of a spear. The boy forgives the head native, “turning the other cheek.” With no one seeking revenge and no more killings at the end of the spear … what then do we have? … we have THE END of “the spear.”

A Quick Confession of Christ

Jesus Christ is essential to my religious experience, both in theory and in praxis. He is my starting point for understanding God and Man. Christ is the mediator between God and Man and I understand Him to be the full and complete revelation of God and the full revelation of Man. I understand Christ to be the God-Man, the incarnate Word spoken by God simultaneously with the breathing out of God’s Spirit.

In terms of my theory, Christ is God’s means of reconciling Man to Himself and He is the fullest expression and evidence of God’s love. In order to redeem Man from death and fulfill His intention of creating a creature in His image with which He could fellowship, God sacrificed His Son to become incarnated in flesh as Man for all time in order to be the full and complete representative of all that Man is intended to be. As perfect Man, Christ Jesus has Man’s full and intended fellowship with God which is not interrupted by death because God recognizes in Christ the love and devotion of a creature that can and wants and deserves to be in fellowship with Him. In this, Jesus Christ became God’s sacrifice to Man, and also Man’s sacrifice to God. Man’s fellowship with God is continued and death is overcome. And in order to redeem more of Man than just Christ, the mercy and grace of God upon Man comes through Christ in that God chooses to view Man through Christ and in Christ and not as himself. In this regard, all women and men who are identified with Christ are granted the blessings that God gives to Christ. Man and God are reconciled through the God-Man and fellowship is uninterrupted.

In terms of praxis, I understand Christ to be the fulfillment of the law and the standard by which I apply God’s commands. I see the law and, in particular, the greatest and second greatest commandments as speaking to the individual’s relationship to God and to Man. That Christ is both God and Man speaks to the legitimacy of His example and the central position He has in all these relationships. Therefore, I understand my relationship to God as being one that exists through Christ. Furthermore, I understand that my relationship to others as being one that exists through Christ. I would go so far to say that I understand my relationship to myself as being one that exists in and through Christ. I base my entire religious experience with God and with Man as one that is in Christ. I work and pray to become more Christ-like, I measure my faith to the standard that is Christ, and I seek to relate to God and to Man as Christ does.

"Private Prayer Language" And Dictating An Individual's Personal Relationship With God

A friend posted the two following questions on his blog. I thought they were very good questions and here is my answer in toto.

1. Do you believe people today are gifted with "speaking in tongues?" I do not mean speaking in foreign languages, but speaking a spiritual language, a prayer language even, which is understood only by the Holy Spirit?

2. Would you become a member of a church where it was acceptable for people to speak in such a tongue, even if they did not do it in public?


You have raised some good questions. Allow me to offer my “dime-a-dozen” opinion. Let me forewarn: the more I thought about this issue the madder I got at recent individuals who feel the need to come between a person and God.

To answer the first question: from a conservative standpoint, why not?

Luke records in Acts 2, 10, 19 that the church spoken in tongues. In Acts 2, Peter states that this “tongue speaking” was the result of God having the anointed Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit (Luke refers to this event in Luke 3:22 and 4:1). In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus gives the Scriptural basis for this anointing by citing Isaiah. In Acts 2:16-21, Peter gives the Scriptural basis for the anointing of the Jesus’ disciples (and the subsequent “tongue-speaking” by citing the prophecy of Joel. In Acts 10, when the Gentiles receive the anointing by the Holy Spirit and the subsequent “tongue-speaking”, Peter states that the Gentiles have now received the anointing of the Holy Spirit just as they had at Pentecost.

Now in Acts 19, Paul repeats for the Ephesians what Peter did for the house of Cornelius in Acts 10. In Acts 18:1, Paul goes to Corinth and in Acts 19:1, Apollos goes to Corinth. In Acts 18:19, Paul goes to Ephesus and in Acts 18:24, Apollos goes to Ephesus. This appears to be one the methods that Paul and Apollos cooperatively employed when ministering to Gentile churches (1 Corinthians 3:6 – “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase).

What is interesting is that in both Christian communities, we have “tongue-speaking” where Paul and Apollos have both been. It is probable that Paul initiated the “tongue-speaking” in Corinthians as he did in Ephesus.

Paul touches upon “tongue-speaking” in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, 14 and its chapter 14 that is the most relevant to this issue.

In 14:2, the apostle Paul writes, “For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.”

In 14:5, the apostle Paul writes, “I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.”

What Paul is stating in the this chapter is that “tongue-speaking” is edifying to the individual person worshipping God but that in public such a practice is pointless because no one can understand the person. If a person is going to “tongue-speak” in public than he needs an interpreter, otherwise no one knows what he’s saying.

Yes, I do believe that this is a spiritual gift that people receive today. I know a few professors at seminary who speak in tongues in their own personal prayer time with God.

I know that the traditional, conservative view of tongue-speaking is that it no longer occurs, but based upon the doctrine sufficiency of the Scripture as held by conservatives:

1) The Scriptures never state that these gifts reach a cessation point. In fact, according to Peter’s use of Joel in Acts 2, this gift is evidence that the last days are here. If “tongue-speaking” then stops, one could reason that these “last days” are no longer the “last days”. And that would contradict Scripture.

2) According to 1 Corinthians 14:5, Paul encourages “tongue-speaking” for all believers.

Are we going to say that Paul only meant these words for just that particular church at that particular time? Are we going to say that this was a practice that was for the church at that time but that it does not apply to us as Bible-believing, inerrantists who believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures?

Okay, then. We can then use that methodology for the rest of that chapter and in verse 14:34 in particular:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

Now many conservatives believe that this verse prohibits women from being senior pastors. But Paul only meant these words for just that particular church at that particular time. This was a practice that was for the church at that time but that it does not apply to us as Bible-believing, inerrantists who believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

Now I don’t interpret 1 Corinthians 14:34 in the way many conservatives do so I do not have the problem they do.

Now here is where I get passionate:

To answer the second question: a church allowing such a practice in a person’s private time with God would not cause me to not attend that church or become a member. In fact, I would stop attending a church that told the individual “despite what the Bible says, you cannot use ‘tongues’ while praying to God in your private time.”

Who are they to tell a person how they should or should not speak to their God? It is a private matter between two persons and they have no business meddling in such a relationship over such an issue.

What next? “Don’t raise your hands in prayer.” “Don’t kneel in prayer.” Don’t stand up in prayer.” “Don’t pray in the morning,” “Don’t pray at night.” “Use ‘thee’ and ‘thou’” “Don’t use ‘thee’ and ‘thou’.”

Now have never spoken in tongues and I really don’t feel comfortable doing so. But I speak to God and He speaks back. AND I TAKE THOSE MOMENTS VERY SERIOUSLY. I can certainly understand that churches would want to prohibit such worship in public ceremonies but to prohibit the use of private "prayer languages" by missionaries … to me that borders on blasphemous arrogance. No one but Christ has the right or authority to mediate someone’s relationship to God. To do so is to assume Christ’s work as your own.

Yes, the trustees of the International Mission board have decided that since the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as "private prayer language," then any individual who does practice “tongue speaking” or "private prayer language" cannot be a missionary.

Now the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is completely silent on this issue. It does not speak about it either “tongue-speaking” or "private prayer language". But let us examine the IMB trustees’ universal dictate upon all Southern Baptist missionaries’ personal and private prayers to God … with highlighted commentary.

1. Prayer language as commonly expressed by those practitioners is not the same as the biblical use of glossolalia. [It’s just spelt the same way. And most of the trustees agreed to this blanket dictated interpretation despite the wishes of the delegates to Southern Baptist Convention.]

2. Paul’s clear teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding. [“So if we do not understand what you and God are discussing in your private prayer time we must assume that it is not prayer.” You’ll notice they do not cite Scripture here. I suppose 1 Cor. 14:2,5 is considered irrelevant, then.]

3. Any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures. [Notice they are not doing so.]

4. In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as "private prayer language." [That is the general spiritual experience of most Southern Baptists; but any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures.] Therefore, if "private prayer language" is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC. [Well, most Southern Baptist do not raise their hands in prayer; if “hand-raising” is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC?]

Here is an instance where a small group of men have taken it upon themselves to interpret Scripture (without 2000 BFM or convention approval) and decided to prevent any missionary from serving who privately worships God in a manner in which they do not. Here we have a small group of individuals who are claiming the right of the majority to tell minority individuals how they should and should not pray (not in public) but in private. This is a really serious turn of events. How can one legislate the lifting of one’s voice to God?

Speaking of “lifting of one’s voice”, the new IMB program is called Lift Up Your Voice.

How does Jerry Rankin, President of the IMB describe it:

“Those who are called to the mission field sacrifice everything they have —lives of personal comfort and safety —to bring the precious message of Jesus to those who don’t know Him. Those who stay behind play a crucial role in furthering the kingdom. Lift Up Your Voice is a special invitation for your church to lift up hearts, minds, and voices in prayer and devotion in support of missionaries and for the lost around the world. Lift Up Your Voice. It will change your life. It will change your church’s life. It will change the lives of others.”

Of course, Rankin has gotten in trouble recently for admitting that he uses "private prayer language". Following such a revelation, the IMB trustees decided to dictate a ban on "private prayer language".

It appears that, in order to get enough votes among the trustees, some of the lead trustees began to “lobby” other trustees out of session, which is a violation of trustee rules. When one individual trustee began to raise problems over these illegal “lobbying” tactics, the trustees have now decided to seek to remove this individual trustee from the trustee board.

For what cause has this trustee been accused of that he deserves removal? He has “broken trust and [been] resistan[t] to accountability."

At some point, these prideful resurgent fundamentalists are going to have to be accountable to someone for their un-Christ-like behavior.

And to those who believe that “tongue-speaking” is demonic … you better be very careful. Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 12:31 when they proclaimed that the work of the Holy Spirit was the work of demons:

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the [Holy] Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men.”

Virgin Spanking Infant Jesus before Three Witnesses

Max Ernst, Virgin Spanking Infant Jesus before Three Witnesses (1926). It isn't necessarily the most orthordox but it does raise the interesting question of who has done the wrong deed(s). And why is Mary wearing red? And who are the witnesses?

Scripture Verses For Today

Genesis 37:18—20 They saw him in the distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him. They said to each other, "Here comes that dreamer. Now is our chance; let us kill him and throw him into one of these pits and say that a wild beast has devoured him. Then we shall see what will become of his dreams".

Psalms 82:3—4 Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs 21:3 Do what is right and just; that is more pleasing to God than sacrifice.
Isaiah 1:16—17 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Isaiah 40:4-5 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Isaiah 51:7 Hearken unto me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of people, and be not dismayed by their revilings.

Amos 5:21—24 I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts, I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream.

Matthew 5:3—12 Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the realm of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall

Colossians 3:12—14 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving one another; as God has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

2 Peter 3:13 What we await are new heavens and a new
earth where, according to God’s promise,
the justice of God will reside.

Mr. McBeth

Good news! Dr. McBeth's book is back!

And here's to you, “Baptist Heritage”
Students love you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, “Baptist Heritage”
Dante holds a place for those who stray
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

We'd like to know a little bit about you for our class
We'd like to read to learn about ourselves
Look around you, all you see are apathetic eyes
Stroll around the library until you find the book

And here's to you, “Baptist Heritage”
Students love you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, “Baptist Heritage”
Dante holds a place for those who stray
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

Hide it in a hiding place where no one ever goes
Put it in on the back shelf with your mistakes
It's a little secret, just the SBC’s affair
Most of all, you've got to hide it from the “kids”

Hal-le-lu-jah, “Baptist Heritage”
Students love you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, “Baptist Heritage”
Dante holds a place for those who stray
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

Sitting at my desk on a Sunday afternoon
Reading on the SBC debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose

Where have you gone, Leon McBeth
A student turns his lonely eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)
What's that you say, “Baptist Heritage”
Leon McBeth has left and gone away
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

An Open Letter To My Niece And To All Who Are About To Read The Chronicles of Narnia For The First Time

An Open Letter To My Niece And To All Who Are About To Read The Chronicles of Narnia For The First Time

My Dearest Niece,

When you visited us this past autumn, I quite remember discussing the book series, The Chronicles of Narnia. Your mentioning that you had not yet read the series sent me on a quest to obtain all the books of the series for you to enjoy. It is unfortunate that the books we gave you are not new or in excellent condition. Let me explain why I felt it necessary to search out older editions of the book while bypassing newer editions which can be found in ANY bookstore. Being quite a fan of the series, I am somewhat perturbed by the contemporary presentation of newer editions.

First, all new editions of the book are presented in a chronological order but not in the order of which they were first published. Because of this change, much of the emotional impact of the stories and their surprises are diminished greatly. I would never ever allow someone to first read these books in the order of which they are currently produced; it's literary heresy. Even the recent film series begins with the first published book!

Therefore, allow me to suggest the following order:

1) The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe
2) Prince Caspian
3) The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4) The Silver Chair
5) The Magician’s Nephew
6) The Horse and His Boy[1]
7) The Last Battle

Second, while the new editions of the series are presented in an order which greatly diminish the books impact, this does not necessarily require the possession of older editions. If this problem were the newer editions only fault, one could buy the newer editions and tell their niece the best order to read the books in.

However, an incorrect order is not the only problem. C.S. Lewis himself made several changes to the texts of the original British edition while reading the proofs for the American. The changes are noticeable in chapters 1, 6, and 13 of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and chapter 12 of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. It is unfortunate but true that when HarperCollins took over publication of the series in 1994, they made the unusual decision to ignore the changes that Lewis had made and use the original British edition for all subsequent English editions worldwide.

These changes might seem somewhat slight but for the purist they soil the intended work by altering names and places from Lewis’ final conception. Because of these changes in the recent editions, it is impossible for anyone who really loves the books to be completely satisfied with anything other than the intended texts. And, unfortunately, this means that most copies that one acquires are going to be beat-up Collier-Macmillan paperback editions from the 1970s.

Let me assure you that you are not the only one who must suffer with 35 year old paperback editions. I myself spent a good long year searching second hand bookstores in order to obtain a complete set of the pre-1994 American editions. Therefore, while I would never be satisfied simply owning an incomplete set of my favorite book series, I could never allow my niece to be given such an incomplete set. Therefore, please accept my explanation for the quality of these books. I want only the best for my niece and these editions are the best.

These books have been an experience of great joy for me and my imagination since I was in second grade. To this day, I continue to read them at bed time and am frequently amazed that they still shine with undullable insight into what it means to be a follower of Christ and what it means to experience our Faith.

One of the great joys of aging is the experience of reliving our life's greatest joys at seeing younger men and women experience those same joys for the first time. I certainly hope these books bring you as much joy as they have brought me.

Your affectionate uncle,

---

[1] While I realize that The Horse and His Boy was the fifth published book of the series and in no edition appears as sixth, I personally find this position to be more satisfactory in that it sets up the Calormenes for their substantial role in The Last Battle and that it gives more adequate breathing room between the creation of Narnia in The Magician’s Nephew and the events of the final book. But I am hardly dogmatic about this particular preference.

FIRST-PERSON: Understanding the emerging church

Here is a quite fair article from the NAMB about the "emerging" church movement. Coming from an admitted conservative (and nothing wrong with that) this is a very fair and honest conservative look at this movement.

Friday, Jan 6, 2006
By Ed Stetzer

ALPHARETTA, Ga. (BP)--It’s been interesting to watch the emerging church conversation over the last few months. Important issues are being discussed. Unfortunately, like many conversations, good things are lumped together with bad and important conversations are lost in more heat than light.

My own observation as one who speaks at some events classified as “emerging” is that there are three broad categories of what is often called “the emerging church.” Oddly enough, I think I can fairly say that most in the emerging conversation would agree with my assessments about the “types” of emerging leaders and churches -- and just differ with my conclusions.

In this too brief article, perhaps I can make a few suggestions on how conservative evangelicals should view these types of emerging churches. I believe that some are taking the same Gospel in the historic form of church but seeking to make it understandable to emerging culture; some are taking the same Gospel but questioning and reconstructing much of the form of church; some are questioning and revising the Gospel and the church.

-- Relevants.

Yes, I made up the word. Sorry about the grammar. However, it expresses an important idea. There are a good number of young (and not so young) leaders who some classify as “emerging” that really are just trying to make their worship, music and outreach more contextual to emerging culture. Ironically, while some may consider them liberal, they are often deeply committed to biblical preaching, male pastoral leadership and other values common in conservative evangelical churches.

They are simply trying to explain the message of Christ in a way their generation can understand. The contemporary churches of the 1980s and 90s did the same thing (and some are still upset at them for doing so). However, if we find biblical preaching and God-centered worship in a more culturally relevant setting, I rejoice just as I would for international missionaries using tribal cultural forms in Africa.

The churches of the “relevants” are not filled with the angry white children of evangelical megachurches. They are, instead, intentionally reaching into their communities (which are different than where most Southern Baptists live) and proclaiming a faithful biblically-centered Gospel there. I know some of their churches -- they are doctrinally sound, growing and impacting lostness.

-- Reconstructionists.

The reconstructionists think that the current form of church is frequently irrelevant and the structure is unhelpful. Yet, they typically hold to a more orthodox view of the Gospel and Scripture. Therefore, we see an increase in models of church that reject certain organizational models, embracing what are often called “incarnational” or “house” models. They are responding to the fact that after decades of trying fresh ideas in innovative churches, North America is less churched, and those that are churched are less committed.

Yet, God’s plan is deeply connected with the church (see Ephesians 3:10). God’s Word prescribes much about what a church is. So, if emerging leaders want to think in new ways about the forms (the construct) of church, that’s fine -- but any form needs to be reset as a biblical form, not just a rejection of the old form. Don’t want a building, a budget and a program? OK. Don’t want the Bible, scriptural leadership, covenant community? Not OK. (For an excellent summary, see NAMB’s document by Stan Norman called “Ecclesiological Guidelines to Inform Southern Baptist Church Planters.”) Also, we must not forget, if reconstructionists simply rearrange dissatisfied Christians and do not impact lostness, it is hardly a better situation than the current one.

-- Revisionists.

Much of the concern has been addressed at those I call revisionists. Right now, many of those who are revisionists are being read by younger leaders and perceived as evangelicals. They are not -- at least according to our evangelical understanding of Scripture. We significantly differ from them regarding what the Bible is, what it teaches and how we should live it in our churches. I don’t hate them, question their motives and I won’t try to mischaracterize their beliefs. But, I won’t agree with them.

Revisionists are questioning (and in some cases denying) issues like the nature of the substitutionary atonement, the reality of hell, the complementarian nature of gender, and the nature of the Gospel itself. This is not new -- some mainline theologians quietly abandoned these doctrines a generation ago. The revisionist emerging church leaders should be treated, appreciated and read as we read mainline theologians -- they often have good descriptions, but their prescriptions fail to take into account the full teaching of the Word of God.

Does that mean we cannot learn from them? Certainly not. I read mainline theologians like Marcus Borg and George Lindbeck like others in the past read Karl Barth -- good thinkers, but deeply wrong on issues I hold as important. I read many emerging church writers the same way. They ask good questions, but I am driven to Scripture for the answers.

So, where do we go from here?

Much of SBC life is absent from the emerging church conversation. Let’s jump in -- John Hammett at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary has done a great job not just in his paper, but in entering the theological conversation that has flowed from it. His paper can be read at http://ateam.blogware.com/AnEcclesiologicalAssessment.Hammett.pdf.

To be in this conversation, we need to think biblically and critically. We should journey and partner with the “relevants,” seeking to make the Gospel understandable in emerging culture. We can and should enter into dialogue with reconstructionists -- learning, discussing and applying together what Scripture teaches about church.

But, we can and must speak prophetically to revisionists that, yes, we know the current system is not impacting the culture as it should -- but the change we need is more Bible, more maturity, more discernment and more missional engagement, not an abandonment of the teachings of scripture about church, theology and practice. Every group that left these basics has ended up walking away from the faith and then, in a great twist of irony, is soon seen as irrelevant to the world they tried to reach.

This is an important moment in the emerging church. Many “emerging” evangelicals are distancing themselves from the revisionist leaders. Papers have been presented, publishing relationships have been altered, and many in the blogosphere are questioning the ecumenical nature of new partnerships. That’s good. Let’s affirm the good, look to the Scriptures for answers to the hard questions, and, yes, let’s graciously disagree when others hold views contrary to our best scriptural understanding of God, Bible and church.

A Scene from Black Adder

One of the funniest scenes from the best episode of Black Adder's Second Season, one of my favourite shows.

BA: Right, good morning team. My name is Edmund Blackadder
and I'm the new minister in charge of religious genocide.
Now, if you play straight with me you'll find me a considerate
employer, but cross me and you'll find that under this playful
boyish exterior beats the heart of a ruthless sadistic maniac.
Now my man you are ?
MRP: Eh, jailor Sir, my Lord.
BA: Good, well done and your name is ?
MRP: Ploppy Sir.
BA: Ploppy ?
MRP: Yes Sir.
BA: Ploppy the jailor ?
MRP: That's right Sir. Ploppy son of Ploppy.
BA: Ploppy, son of Ploppy the jailor ?
MRP: Ah ach no Sir. I am the first Ploppy to rise to be jailor.
My father, Daddy Ploppy was known as Ploppy the slopper.
It was from him that I inherited my fascinating skin diseases.
BA: Yes you are to be congratulated, my friend, we, we live in an age
where illness and deformity are common place and yet Ploppy, you are
without a doubt the most repulsive individual that I have ever met.
I would shake your hand but I fear it would come off.
MRP: There's no many bosses would be that considerate sir.
BA: Thank you Ploppy, I do my best. Now then woman. if indeed you are a
woman, what is your function on death row ?
MRSP: I'm the last meal cook Sir. The prisoners may ask for what they fancy
for there last meal.....
BA: And you cook for them what they desire ?
MRSP: Oh yes Sir, provided they ask for sausages. Otherwise they tend to get
a tiny bit disappointed. Sausages is all I got.
BA: You are clearly a woman of principle and compassion mistress eh ?
MRSP: Ploppy Sir.
BA: Ah, so you are married to...
MRSP: No, many people think that but it's pure coincidence. We did laugh
when first we found out. "Good morning" mistress Ploppy he'd say,
and I'd say "good morning ..
MRP&
MRSP: Mr. Ploppy" (both laugh)
BA: The long winter evenings must just fly by. Ah ! and you must be the
boy who makes the tea ?
MRP: Ah no Sir, he's the executioner but he does sometime make the tea.
BA: Yes, and your name is ?
B: Baldrick my Lord, but I'll change it to Ploppy if it'll make things
easier.
BA: No thank you. I can cope with more than one name. What are you doing
here ?
B: Well, it's a hobby
MRSP: It would be more, more fun Sir if he were to change his name. Give the
place a more family atmosphere.
BA: A family atmpsphere ? This is meant to be a place of pain and misery
and sorrow.
MRSP: That's what I mean Sir.
MRP: Eh, Mistress Ploppy is a bit of a social realist Sir.
BA: Now then, we're going to run a fast efficient operation and I intend to
do as little work as possible. My deputy Percy here will explain.
P: Good afternoon staff, my name is Lord Percy and if you play fair by me
you will find me a considerate employer, but if you cross me BY JOVE,
you ...
BA: Just tell'em the plan duckface.
P: My Lord, not in front of the staff.
BA: Get on with it.
P: Right Staff, as you know we are scheduled to execute Drake and
Ethingham on Monday, Lord Farrow on Wednesday and Buckingham and
Ponsonby on Friday. But in order to give us the middle of the week off,
Lord Blackadder has decided to move Farrow to Monday.
BA: Lets just say he's got time off for good behaviour.

Is Naturalism A Religion?

I recently came upon this article in the Baptist Press: FIRST-PERSON: Call Darwinism what it is -- a religion.

I have been hearing this and similar arguments for many years now. Sometimes I have heard such a point made with regards to atheists as in, “atheism is a religion” and made by Christian theologians with quite high pedigrees.

Nevertheless, while such an argument may satiate our minds and provide those of us who do believe with enough mental distraction to carry on the fight to proclaim the good news, the question needs to be asked and answered: Is Darwinism a religion?

This point is often made by those within the conservative (and particularly within the fundamentalist) community with very little evidence to substantiate such a claim. Perhaps because the buttressing of such a point as essential to the movement is not either warranted or desired is the reason why such evidence is lacking. The most popular opportunities for this argument to be made is when the “creationist” movement is dealt a popular setback, such as the recent judicial decision of the Katzmiller v. Dover case. Usually the decision of the judge is to argue that “creationism” is not a science but a religion. The knee-jerk response by many fundamentalists is to then reply: “Well, Evolution/Darwinism is a religion, too! So there!” And this is a really odd reply, but it does appear to give the fundamentalist movement some form of psychological satisfaction.

The proponents of “creationism” had spent much effort and argument attempting to persuade the courts, the media and the public that “creationism” is a science just like that of evolution. When the response of the courts, the media and the public is one of refutation (“No, ‘creationism’ is a religion.”), the “creationists” then respond by saying that evolution is a religion like “creationism”. Needless to say, this final reply to the debate undermines all for which the “creationists” said they were fighting. It also invalidates into futility all future attempts at persuading the public that “creationism” is a science.

In terms of giving the fundamentalist movement some form of “psychological satisfaction”, I suspect that the “evolution is a religion” response gives some people a sense of slight vindication in that they have found the irony of the result whose absurdity negates that result. Example:

“‘Creationism’ is a science just like evolution is a science. The judge says that evolution is a science but ‘creationism’ is a religion. But what the judge failed to realize is that evolution is a religion just like ‘creationism’. Such hypocritical irony reinforces the fact that we fundamentalists were right to begin with.”

And while such “psychological satisfaction” may be self-deluding and is certainly not a psychological reflex found solely among fundamentalists (EVERY one does it, including atheists), I do think that it is important for Christians, particularly those of a more conservative persuasion, to not fall into this reflex, asserting that Evolution/Darwinism is a religion.

And interestingly enough the author of this article is somewhat in agreement.

“When establishing a defense for the action of the school board, the legal team attempted to demonstrate that, scientifically, Intelligent Design was on the same par with Darwinism. They attempted to use scientific data to substantiate their strategy. But in a hostile court given to secular training and modern jurisprudence, this is like comparing the proverbial apple with an orange. You may score some verbal points with the home crowd but you will lose the court battle.”

This, I believe, is a good point; let me attempt summarize: The “creationist” legal team erred when attempting to argue that “creationism” is scientific as evolution which to the “hostile” court was like comparing apples to oranges.

But now consider the author’s solution to what the “creationist” legal team’s strategy should have been.

“The school district’s legal team should have invested more energy exposing Darwinism as the key tenet of a religion, namely secular Naturalism. It is this religion’s worldview that is espoused every day in our nation’s public education system and the vast majority of our nation’s public science educators are the missionaries for this religion that appeals to a student’s logic. … had the Dover Area School Board’s legal team used their time to expose Naturalism as religious bias in the public education environment, the judge would have been without excuse to accommodate Intelligent Design with Darwinism. Now we are stuck with a judicial opinion that will be referenced in future cases as further justification to purge Christian thought from the educational environment.”

This, I believe, is a self-contradicting point; let me attempt summarize both points in harmony: The “creationist” legal team erred in attempting to argue that “creationism” is as scientific as of evolution which to the “hostile” court was like comparing apples to oranges, when the “creationist” legal team should have attempted to argue that evolution was a religious like that of “creationism”. Presumably, the author thinks that this strategic argument would have faired better than “‘creationism’ is scientific” argument with the “hostile” court.

Why does the author think “evolution” is religious?

1) Evolution is illogical so in order to believe in evolution one must have faith.

“However, when one actually thinks about how unbelievable Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution really is, it becomes increasingly illogical. Think about it -- you start with dust particles, then rocks, then through a spontaneous event, water emerges, then oceans, then over millions, perhaps billions of years there is the spontaneous concoction of atoms and molecules to form the basic trace elements like carbon and calcium. Then to top it all off, the world spontaneously experiences the formation of one-celled life forms with intelligence. After many millions and millions of years, the one-cell forms spontaneously produce multi-celled beings and, by a freak of nature, humankind arrives on the landscape with the capacity to build buildings and computers and.... For one to believe that people are the result of a random chance of nature takes a real leap of faith.”

My response: This is a subjective statement. Simply because one believes a view to be illogical does not necessitate that the view is indeed illogical. Some people argue that Christianity is illogical; this does not make it so.

Furthermore, simply because someone takes a something on “faith” does not automatically qualify such action as a religion. 1) We go to work each day believing that we will not die without any sort of proof. Is going to work a religion, 2) We marry someone believing such a relationship to last a lifetime even though the evidence in our culture makes such an assumption illogical. Is marriage a religion? 3) We believe that particular political parties are sound despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Are political parties religions?

Finally, when we equate “illogic” as a designator of religion and faith we do a great disservice to religion and the Christian faith in particular. In order to ‘level” the playing field (so to speak) between religion and science you are not building up religion but tearing down science. And neither approach is warranted. You’re playing defensive and are admitting by suggestion that you believe science has the upper hand in the debate. And that is the problem: you appear to believe that atheistic evolution (or at least evolution by itself) is correct because you do not carry yourself as one who believes himself to be right.

2) Since one holding to evolution is doing so by faith, and since “many people” do so, this “many people” constitutes a religion.

“Just because many people are taught this nonsense and claim to believe it does not make it so. Nevertheless, they do believe it and because people place their faith in something, you have the formation of a religion, a worldview that filters everything they think.”

My response: Again, you are cheapening both religion and faith by reducing them to such trivialities. You are lessening religion in your attempts fit a science into such a category.

Furthermore, so many obviously non-religious entities can fit into such a pre-fabricated category: political parties, businesses, political action groups, benevolent societies, men’s and women’s clubs, sport’s teams, entertainment groups, unions, and the list goes on and on.

Also, if you are arguing that naturalism and evolution (and, by logical extension, the above categorically related groups) constitutes a religion then you are suggesting that any Christian who identifies themselves with such a group is committing idolatry. Are you prepared to go down that path?

Finally, if you are going to argue that naturalism/evolution is a religion then you must be prepared to adhere to the religious freedoms our nation guarantees to such religious groups. Are you prepared to give ample time to another religion?

And this presents another problem. In their desire to be formally recognized, the “creationists” are blurring the lines between religion and science. They equate the Christian fundamentalist faith with science and equate Naturalistic evolution science with religion. Are you really saying that the only way for your view to be recognized in American culture is to destroy the definitions of your view and your opponents view?

3) Just because many people do not recognize something as “something” does not mean that something isn’t “something. Meaning, just because evolution doesn’t fit the categories of what is generally regarded as a religion doesn’t mean that it isn’t a religion. (This works in reverse: Just because “creationism” doesn’t fit the categories of what is generally regarded as a science doesn’t mean that it isn’t a science.)

“Just because a religion doesn’t meet on Sunday and it doesn’t have steeples, seminaries or salvation, doesn’t mean Naturalism (Darwinism) is not a valid choice by people on the landscape of world religions. To illustrate, the United States is engaged in a war. The war against terror is not against an army of a national identity. The war is being waged with Al Qaeda. No one doubts the destruction and reality of this terrorist organization. Who can forget 9/11? Al Qaeda may not look like an army at war against the people of the United States, but we cannot, we will not forget the effect of their military actions against us.”

My response: see response #2.

4) The defining characteristics of a religion are “adherents, organizations and a philosophical agenda”.

“Educators, judges, politicians may not want to call Darwinism a religion, but it is. It has adherents, organizations and a philosophical agenda wrapped in scientific language. Since Darwinism is a religion, then evangelicals must continue to call on the courts to level the playing field of the public square.”

My response: see response #2.

The main problem with this argument is that he does not really designate what factors define a religion. And he can’t. If he did then he would not have an argument because naturalism/evolution does not fit these categories. What are the identifying features of a religion? Before we answer that question and see how naturalism/evolution (and science in general) fit into these categories, I think it would behoove us establish a working idea of what naturalism is. But even before this, I think we need to make clear the distinction that exists between knowledge by faith and knowledge by science.

In Christian theology “revelation” signifies divine self-disclosure in significant communication. Since this disclosure is unique and original, and its contents are unknown apart from the disclosure, it cannot be equated with human discovery. And this is an extremely important point.

Nineteenth century Christian liberalism understood that revelation was an act of the infinite God making contact with His finite creation. God by His very nature was one who could not be known accept by His self-disclosure. Man could not comprehend God or reason God. But if God is revealing Himself to man in order for man to understand Him then God would not be revealing Himself in a way that went beyond the reasoning of man. Therefore, all of the events and doctrines that were deemed to be beyond the reasoning of man were held to be false and not from the self-disclosing Creator. This included miracles and all supernaturalism, the incarnation, and the doctrine of the Trinity. This was a fatal error in 19th century liberalism and led to the idea of the imminence of God and the practical association of equating Man with God (see Hegel). It was not until the advent of neo-orthodoxy and the rediscovery of Kierkegaard’s writings that liberal Christianity began to readjust itself towards a transcendental distinction between God and Man; a distinction that was only mediated by the God-Man Jesus Christ. It was He who was/is the ultimate, unique and final revelation of God to man. And Jesus as the God-Man is God disclosing Himself and reaching down to Man and not Man reaching up to God (see Nikos Kazanzakis’s prologue to his book, The Last Temptation of Christ).

In this regard, revelation is that which man cannot know apart from the disclosing act of God. By definition, it is knowledge that man cannot reason by himself. In the Scriptures, we are given a record of God’s revelation to man of knowledge that man cannot reason on his own. And this is important to know.

Man can reason and come to conclusions about why Nebuchadnezzar attacked the city of Tyre. We can look at the recorded tablets of both sides and examine the archaeological evidence and come to generally acceptable conclusions. Nebuchadnezzar wanted access to Tyre’s seaport, the wealth of its riches, and a strategic military point in which to invade the southern reaches of Palestine. Man can arrive at this conclusion. But how can man learn that the greater reason for this attack on Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar was in response to Tyre’s ill-treatment of Israel? How on earth can we know God’s divine plan accept by learning it from God Himself?

Man can reason how man emerged from the earth and developed into his present form. Man can examine thousands and millions of years of biological evidence and reasonable conclude that man developed out of careful biological changes over billions of years? Man can learn this for himself. But how can man discover who created him? How can man discover why he was created? How can man learn that he has worth and value and that he was created in the image of his Creator in order to relate to that Creator?

Man cannot know these things except by God revealing it to him. Science cannot reach these conclusions and has no desire to attempt such a task. More often than not, we are seeing in the Bible not a record of objective events written by man for the sake of the historical record, but, rather, subjective, religious Scriptures that are interpreting history for man by way of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are not answering scientific questions that can be learned by man himself but answering interpretive, spiritual questions of meaning and value that man cannot learn on his own.

Knowledge by faith comes by revelation of God and man being interacted with God.

In contrast, the scientific method gains knowledge by interaction with the creation and not the Creator, and can only answer questions about the physical and objective universe. It tries to give theories of the world which best fit the generally observable evidence. Furthermore, science by its very nature is based upon objective evidence and general consensus that can be presented repeatedly under defined circumstances by any individual in that general community. If a scientist has an experience that is subjective and cannot be repeatedly tested by others under certain defined circumstances then the scientist cannot study or reach publishable conclusions on such a phenomenon.

Having made this distinction between religion and science let me give a working definition of naturalism.

"Naturalism" refers to a number of different topics:

• Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances which do not claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural necessarily do not exist or are wrong, but insist that they are not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses, and that both supernatural and natural phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods.

o Methodological naturalism assumes that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
o Ontological naturalism is the metaphysical assumption that the natural world is all that exists.
• Ethical naturalism: the theory that ethical terms can be defined in non-ethical terms.
• Humanistic naturalism: an outlook that places the emphasis upon a naturalism based upon scientific reasoning
• Natural history: a broad area of the natural sciences concerned with living things.
• Sociological naturalism: the view that the natural world and the social world are roughly identical and governed by similar principles.
• Naturalism as an artistic style.
• Naturalism as a literary, cinematic, or theatrical style.

I will focus on the broadest definition (the philosophical one) because I believe it to be the idea that the author of the article was referring.

The basic thrust of this philosophy is that all “supernatural” phenomena can be rationally explained in terms of natural causes.

I would agree with this idea in so far as it allows for the condition that the causes of some natural phenomena are currently beyond the reasoning of man. To argue that all phenomena that cannot be currently reasoned do not exist is unreasonable. It would be akin to a twenty-first century physicists agreeing that an 18th century physicists who argues that atoms do not exist because they cannot be proven to exist was correct because he was making this point in the eighteenth century.

Such a stance crosses over into areas of subjective experience which is beyond the bounds of science’s generally agreed territory. Such a stance would cause a breakdown in science. Galileo would be correct because he made his now erroneous point during the 17th century. Newton would be correct because he made his now erroneous point during the 18h century.

Einstein would be correct because he made his now erroneous point during the 20th century.

I do believe that the “miracles” recorded in Scripture happened the way in which it is recorded. I have no problem accepting the notion of a virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, feeding of 5000, walking on water and the parting of the Red Sea.

However, I do not see such “miracles” as “supernatural” in terms of breaking the laws of creation. I can well understand that the Creator knows His creation well enough to use its laws to enact events that appear to break the laws of creation and be “miraculous” to the finiteness of its creatures. What looks like a supernatural feeding five thousand could be (probably is) the cosmic equivalent of God pulling a quarter from the ear of a child. But, on the other hand, while I suspect that God does not enact events within His creation which break that creation’s previously defined rules, I certainly do not limit God to only this mode of interaction. My view of God working within the set laws of creation is based on the observation that God allows evil to persist and runs its course without an earlier, supernatural interaction. But this is simply a hunch.

So I have no problem with viewing the world in terms of naturalism in so far as it allows for the condition that the scope of possible reality is not limited to the reasoning of man. However, I do acquiesce to the standard that the scope of scientific study is within that limit of man’s reasoning. To this degree, scientific knowledge and revealed knowledge remains separate fields of discipline.

Interestingly enough, the initial rivalry between faith and science that previously existed during the 18th and 19th century as softened during the 20th century. As the natural sciences moved away from the deterministic Newtonian view of the world and entered into a far more undetermined and unpredictable view of creation, the idea that God could act in “supernatural” ways in this world and still maintain the consistency of creation became a far more credible notion. Further reasoned studies into the behavior of subatomic particles, relativity and now string theory lend further credence to the idea that the universe naturally behaves in such a manner that defies the reasoning of man. However, “religious miracles” still remained outside of science’s field of study and, therefore, remained unexamined. It is said that many fundamentalists today are fighting an argument they more or less won during the last century. Science has moved on; why can’t religion?

In this regard, I do not have a problem with the scientific theory of evolution because 1) I do not see it as contrary to the Scriptures because a) evolution is dealing with an issue separate from that which the Scriptures are concentrated and b) the differences in faith and science are such that I believe it is impossible for them to touch let alone contradict the other and because 2) the value that I place upon man is not based upon the method of his creation but by the value that God says He places upon him. With regards to this last point: a baby is not of more or less value if he or she is created by test tube or not. Similarly, Adam is not of more value than either Eve who was differently made from Adam’s rib or a contemporary person made by ordinary sexual reproduction. We as humans (let along Christians) do not discern value based upon method of creation but by the fact that the person is a human person. Evolutionary theory has not in the practical sense cheapened humanity’s sense of self value. In fact, if one looks at the history of mankind, one can see that a gradual progression in humanity’s sense of value. We certainly see this progression from the onset of the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment eras. And I would argue that such a progression is due solely to the influence of Christian ethics upon the secular world. This is an ethic that evolutionary theory has done little to aggravate. Therefore, such value distinctions are made by man’s recognition of God’s revealed intent of creation and not by our own understanding of the method of that creation. This is why any future human perhaps made by cloning will not be of any lesser or greater value to either God or ourselves.

Having given a working definition of naturalism and what it involves and what its limitations are, let me offer some defining characteristics of religion.

Among those who study religions (both Christians and non-Christians) there is a general consensus among this field that there are certain defining characteristics common to religions. These characteristics may be shared with other belief systems, but taken together they make religion distinct.

1) Belief in Supernatural Beings:

Belief in the supernatural, especially gods, is one of the most obvious characteristics of religion. It’s so common, in fact, that some people mistake mere theism for religion itself; yet that is incorrect. Theism can occur outside of religion and some religions are atheistic (Buddhism for example; but this is atheism is more theoretical than practical as so many third world Buddhists are theists). Despite this, supernatural beliefs are a common and fundamental aspect to most religions, while the existence of supernatural beings is almost never stipulated in non-religious belief systems.

Science (and naturalism in particular) does not focus on the supernatural; its area of study is the realm of the natural and cannot be anything else.

The very fact that naturalism does not dabble in the “supernatural” is evidence enough that it cannot be a religion.

2) Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:

Distinguishing between the sacred and the profane is so common and so important in religions that some have argued that this distinction should be considered the defining characteristic of religion. The creation of such a distinction can help direct believers to focus on transcendental values and supernatural aspects of the world around us. Sacred times, places, and object remind us that there is more to life than what we see.

Science (and naturalism in particular) does not and cannot make any distinctions between the sacred and profane. Such distinctions are not their area of expertise. Science and naturalism are objective disciplines of study and do not make subjective distinctions. By its very nature, science cannot make that distinction. And in terms of the Christian faith, such a distinction is not even made by the subjective man but is revealed to man by God in subjective experiences. The man who believes in the supernatural is not given the authority to decide the differences between sacred and profane; certainly the man who does not believe in the supernatural is not better able to make such distinctions from his own reason. Only God can make such interpretive distinctions and man can only agree to such a distinction when he receives that distinction as revelation from God (see Acts 10 for a primary example. Here Peter makes a sacred/profane distinction between clean and unclean foods and, by extension, between Jews and Gentiles. In this incident, God informs Peter that HE is the one who makes such distinctions and not man). The very fact that God is not within science’s area of study is evidence that such a characteristic is not tenable.

3) Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:

But merely noting the existence of the sacred usually isn’t sufficient. If a religion emphasizes the sacred, then it will also emphasize ritual acts involving the sacred. Special actions must occur at sacred times, in sacred places, and/or with sacred objects. These rituals serve to unite members of the current religious community not just with each other, but also with their ancestors and their descendants (The primary example of such a ritual within Christianity is the Lord-instituted Communion meal which unites the Church, past, present and future, as the body of Christ and the separated community.). Rituals can be important components of any social group, religious or not, but can we find such a ritual among naturalism which neither makes sacred distinctions nor ritualizes such distinctions? If one were to suggest the scientific method as a viable candidate for a naturalistic ritual, one would also have to tend with other group-defining methods: textual exegesis, business trade, political campaigning, judicial review, musical composition, the Socratic method and method acting.

4) Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:

Few religions don’t include some sort of basic moral code in their teachings. Because religions are typically social and communal in nature, it’s only to be expected that they also have directions about how people should behave and treat each other, not to mention outsiders. Justification for this particular moral code rather than any other usually comes in the form of the code’s supernatural origins, for example from gods which created both the code and humanity. For example, the Christian ethic of “love thy neighbor” comes from God and not man.

While science does have professional rules of engagement these rules are subject to change based upon the knowledge that they are not divine in nature. And such rules are found in any discipline or profession be it politics, law, business, education, research, war or medicine.

5) Characteristically Religious Feelings:

Awe, a sense of mystery, a sense of guilt, and adoration are “religious feelings” which tend to be aroused in religious believers when they come in the presence of sacred objects, in sacred places, and during the practice of sacred rituals. Usually these feelings are connected with the supernatural, for example it may be thought that the feelings are evidence of the immediate presence of divine beings. Like rituals, this attribute often occurs outside religion.

While I am sure that naturalists and scientists get great excitement from there discoveries, I do not think we should not cheapen man’s divine experience with God by equating it with man’s natural experience with his own intellect.

6) Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:

Because the supernatural is so often personalized in religions, it only makes sense that believers would seek interaction and communication. Many rituals, like sacrifices, are one type of attempted interaction. Prayer is a very common form of attempted communication which might occur quietly with a single person, loudly and publicly, or in the context of a group of believers. There is no single type of prayer or single type of effort to communicate, just a common desire to reach out.

Scientists by nature do not communicate through prayer or receive knowledge by revelation.

7) A World View & Organization of One’s Life Based on the World View:

It's normal for religions to present believers with a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. For example, religions can answer the question of whether the world exists for the believer or if they are bit players in someone else's drama. This picture will usually include some details of an overall purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into that as well — for example, are they supposed to serve the gods, or do the gods exist to help them along?

Naturalism does not provide a meaning or purpose to existence because such interpretations are outside the bounds of their focus and study. Scientists have no interest in such endeavors and do not pretend to offer answers to these questions. In truth, the only person who can provide such answers is God and in our lives He does so only by subjective faith and non-scientific methods.

8) A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:

Religions are so commonly organized socially that religious beliefs without a social structure have acquired their own label, “spirituality.” Religious believers often join together with like-minded adherents to worship, fellowship, or even live together. Religious beliefs are typically transmitted not just by family, but by an entire community of believers. Religious believers sometimes associate with each other to the exclusion of non-adherents, and may place this community at the center of their lives.

While naturalistic scientists may have a scientific community, it really cannot be classified as a religious community bound by the preceding religious characteristics.

Now the more characteristics that a belief system has, the more religion-like it is. Most commonly recognized religions — like Christianity or Hinduism — will have all of them. A few religions and a few manifestations of common religions will have 5 or 6 of them. Belief systems and other pursuits that are described as “religious” in a metaphorical way, like for example some people’s approach to sports, will exhibit 2 or 3 of these. Thus the entire gamut of religion as an expression of culture can be covered by this approach. For all these reasons naturalism and Darwinism cannot be considered a religion.
In conclusion, I want to make a strong point about this “creationism” issue.
Yes, “creationists” are diluting both science and religion by identifying naturalism as a religion.

Yes, “creationists” are undermining their argument by asserting that “creationism” is a science and science is a religion.

Yes, “creationists” do not have a clear understanding of the Scriptures’ purpose or its nature.

Yes, “creationists” do not have a proper understanding of how man receives various forms of knowledge.

Yes, “creationists” do not have a proper understanding of God’s defining characteristic categories of value.

Yes, all of these points are perceived to me to be errors, but there is even a greater error that is being made by our good-intentioned brothers and sisters in the “creationist” movement and it is to you that I address this conclusion.

By arguing that “creationism” is a scientifically viable option YOU ARE DAMAGING THE FAITH. You are accepting THEIR conditions by which Truth is recognized. You are suggesting that the Faith is untenable if it does not meet the standards set by other individuals, most of which are outside of the Faith. By agreeing to those terms, you set the Faith up to take a beating by not meeting those prefabricated standards.

Here is my parabolic example:

An Atheist states, “Christian, if your faith is true than you should be able to call down fire from heaven and burn that particular bush. If you cannot do so then your faith is invalid. The Christian responds, “Atheist, my faith is true and it will be proven to be so if I call down fire from heaven to burn that particular bush (because such proof was given by Ezekiel on Mt. Carmel in 1 Kings 18 of the Bible).” Then the Christian calls for fire to come down from heaven and burn that particular bush. But nothing happens. So the Atheist responds, “By the standards of truth that you agreed upon your faith (and the Bible which proclaims that faith) is not true.” So the Christian decides to spend the rest of his life trying to convince the Atheist that despite what both the Atheist and Christian saw fire actually did indeed come down from heaven and burn that particular bush thus confirming the truth of the Christian’s faith (and the Bible which proclaims that faith).

In the outcome, the Atheist is no closer to the Kingdom, other non-believers are pushed away from a faith they perceive to be based in absurdity, and the Christian wastes both his witness and his ministry chasing after wind. The Atheist and other non-believers are damned and spend their lives chasing after wind; why should the redeemed Christian join them in mock-ministry?

Do you want to convince people to believe in the God of the Bible and the God of our Lord Jesus Christ? Well, don’t force yourself into school curriculum; go out and witness to the world by proclaiming the Gospel. There is no other way.