I am looking forward to the release of my new book on the Godhead in June! 

A Man's Gift Will Make Room For Him Part 2

For some reason I woke up off and on though the night thinking about my last blog on this topic. Consequently, I am revisiting this issue. I have returned to this issue to discuss it from a traditional point of view. By traditional I mean the way it is commonly used to refer to a man and his ministry. We often tell young preachers that if you truly are called of God you will not need any man's help. He certainly cannot aid God in the process himself. He is to tell no one that he is called. He is to just pray and study and God will do the rest. Strictly speaking, this is very seldom the way that it happens no matter how much we protest to the contrary. Thank God for when it does. 

The larger point that I want to make with this blog post is "the gift will make room" for the man. Certainly the gift will make room for the man, but men will always attempt to determine the size of the room. We tell the man that his gift will make room for him, but then tell him how big his room can be and where it must be built. 

I understand that a novice preacher will need fatherly direction, but the novice is not the only one who receives this kind of pressure. Men who have been consistent and faithful for decades are still receiving pressure about the size and location of the room their gift made for them. My dad at 66, who has been preaching since he was 17, is still receiving political pressure from local groups. Men began to feel like they are the lords of their territories.

If we are going to argue that a man's gift will make room for him, then we must let him operate in the room his gift has built. I understand that there are exceptions and parameters, but not many. Especially for the experienced man of God. We should never judge a man by a single place that he preaches. Neither must we judge a man by the minority of the places that he preaches. We should judge a man by the whole body of friendships that he has, not a nuanced list of men for whom he has preached. 

If we are going to insist that a man's gift—and not the man himself—will make room for him, then we have to allow room for the gift.

IndoctriNation Trailer from IndoctriNation on Vimeo.

How Persuaded Are You?

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed: Paul was exhorting the Galatians in the truth of the gospel that they had received from him. It was the gospel and there was no other gospel forth coming. And since there was no other gospel that would come later, the Galatians was not be persuaded by any message or messenger that was contrary to what they had already received.

Paul used a hypothetical illustration about himself, or even an angel from heaven, being accursed if they preached another gospel to the Galatians to demonstrate how persuaded the Galatians should be in the gospel of grace that was originally preached to them.

How persuasive do you think Paul could be? It wass Paul’s job as a preacher of the gospel, as well as the job of all gospel preachers, to be persuasive. (2 Corinthians 5:11) Paul had persuaded some Jews, and a great many devout Greeks and more than a few women. (Acts 17:4) Paul had persuaded people to worship God contrary to the Law of Moses. (Acts 18:13) Paul had persuaded Jews in the synagogue about the kingdom of God. (Acts 19:8) Paul had persuaded a great many people in almost all Asia to follow God. (Acts 19:26) If you are not yet persuaded of his powers of persuasion, then examine the arguments that Paul crafted in Romans. I believe Hebrews is Pauline also. Even according to modern secular standards Paul was a brilliant logician, philosopher and rhetorician. Paul was also equally great by first century Greek standards. Paul was indeed persuasive.

But if that was not enough, Paul stepped it up a notch and included the persuasion powers of angels from heaven.  How persuasive do you think that an angel from heaven could be? An angel persuaded a virgin she could conceive a child without the natural contribution of a man. (Luke 1:34-35) An angel convinced a reluctant Joseph who is about to put away his wife for fornication that she had actually conceived of the Holy Spirit and not a man. (Matthew 1:20) An angel convinced Mary Magdalene, and others, at the tomb of Jesus that their dead Messiah had actually been raised from the dead. (Luke 21:1-11) What persuasiveness!

Part of the powerful persuasion of angels is their imposing appearance. They have appearance like lightening and their clothes are white as snow (Matthew 28:2) and they shine with the glory of the Lord (Luke 2:9). 

Yet, Paul argued that the Galatian Christians were to be so settled in their conviction of the nature of the gospel that neither he nor an angel could turn them away from it. Obviously an angel from heaven would never preach a gospel other than the true gospel. Paul was using an absurd hyperbole to demonstrate the depth of conviction Christians should have concerning justification by grace. 

American Versus Liberal

If a man doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a man is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a man is hetrosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a man is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a man doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a liberal doesn't like a talk show host they demand it be shut down.

The Pot Called the Kettle Black

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;

"You are dirty and ugly and black!

Sure no one would think you were metal,

Except when you're given a crack."

"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;

"'Tis your own dirty image you see;

For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –

That your blackness is mirrored in me."

As the smut cover cauldron peers at the stainless kettle, all the cauldron can see is his own smutty image, and, therefore, perceives the kettle as black. It is the pot projecting his own blackness onto the kettle. When the pot calls the kettle black he is revealing himself. The accusation of blackness speaks to the character  of the cauldron and not to the character of the kettle. How often do we see this happen? How often have I done this myself? How often have you done this?

When the government calls its citizens greedy...the pot has called the kettle black. 

When Republicans call Democrats opportunists...the pot has called the kettle black. 

When Democrats call Republicans angry...the pot has called the kettle black. 

When one impugns the motives of another...the pot has called the kettle black. 

When independent Apostolics call organized Apsotolics political...the pot has called the kettle black. 

When organized Apostolics call independent Apostolics controlling...the pot has called the kettle black.

Work Out Your Own Salvation

“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13 ESV).”

Here Paul says, “work out your own salvation,” but then goes on to clarify how we work out our own salvation: “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”As Christians we do the work, but the will and the work are worked in us by God. We actually work as He works in us. We work as God synergistically works in us through our will. It is like a man working a backhoe tractor: “For it is the operator who works in the tractor, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” The tractor is actually what is digging the hole.  The man operating the tractor never actually touches the ground himself, but he does dig the hole because he is in the tractor working the controls and willing it where, when and how to work. So we actually work out the salvation, digging the hole as it were, but God is the one in us at the controls willing us when, where and how to work. Both the operator and the tractor are working. The tractor operator does not work alone, and the tractor cannot work alone; it is a cooperative effort.

Is Baptism Necessary?

I recently tweeted, "What baptism does one cannot be saved without; therefore, baptism is essential to salvation."

I want to expand on that idea here on this blog.  What does baptism do?  Can a person be saved without what baptism does?

1. Baptism is for the remissions of sins (Acts 2:38): Can one be saved without the remissions of sins?

2. Baptism is a commandment (Acts 10:48): Can one be saved who refuses to obey the commands of God?

3. Baptism is when sin is washed away (Acts 22:16): Can one be saved if their sins are not washed away?

4. Baptism puts one into Christ and into his death (Romans 6:3): Can one be saved outside of Christ and his death?

5. Baptism is how one puts on Christ (Galatians 3:27): Can one be saved who has not put on Christ?

6. Baptism is the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11-12): Can one be saved having not put off the body of sin?

Snake Handling: Bad Theology with Real-Life Consequences

http://news.yahoo.com/serpent-handling-west-virginia-pastor-dies-snake-bite-173406645--abc-news-topstories.html

Mark Wolford is in the news after having been bitten by a timber rattler in a snake handling service.  I want to say first that this is a sad story and prayer should be offered for the comfort of his family.  However, there is another side to this story that also needs to be pointed out; doctrine has consequences.

There is nothing admirable, honorable or excusable about this situation.  This was an unnecessary and avoidable death based on a fatally flawed interpretation of scripture (Mark 16:17-18).  He was not the first, and he will not be the last to unnecessarily die.  

Just because this misunderstanding of scripture is sincerely believed does not mean that it is a valid belief; it is not.  These sincere and good people need to be converted from this false teaching.  Even though they call themselves Apostolic, this is NOT apostolic doctrine or teaching.  This was not the practice or teaching of the apostles concerning snake handling.  The apostles would have most certainly rejected and rebuked this tradition for a number of different reasons.  

There is not a single example of the apostles purposely picking up actual snakes to prove they were believers.  The only time an apostle handled an actual snake in scripture it was an accident, and he killed it (Acts 28:3-6).  This is the apostolic, and the Texas way of handling a serpent. 

Anderson-Thrasher Debate

I am looking forward to the Anderson-Thrasher debate, which I am moderating.  It will be July 19-20.  I will share more details as we know them.  I have debated Thomas Thrasher twice, but this will be my first time to moderate in a debate against him.  It should be a great debate. 

My Eyes Are Closed, You Can't See Me

"My eyes are closed, you can't see me," said my little girl as she sat on my lap.  Of course I laughed at the thought of her thinking that my vision was limited to what she could see; because she was invisible to herself she thought that she was also invisible to me.

How often we think that if we close our eyes that somehow our Heavenly Father, and our brothers an sisters, become blinded by our closed eyes?  Surely if I close my eyes to my own failures and flaws then everyone else's eyes are also closed.

It is with God, as with me as I watched by little girls close her own eyes, He sees me with my own eyes willingly closed thinking that I have blinded Him to me as well.  God sees; God knows!  My prayer is that God will give me grace and courage to open my eyes to both see Him and myself as I ought.

Atheist Hypocrisy

I have been watching a lot of Atheism vs. Theism debates lately and I wanted to post some observations.  I am sure if any of my atheist friends find their way to my blog that they will engage in Dawkinian and Hitchinian insults about how ignorant and deluded that I am.  This is totally fine with me.

1. BURDEN OF PROOF DISCREPANCY:  While our atheists friends chide us incessantly about the lunacy of theism and its lack of evidence they are more than willing to be open minded about pure speculation and even laud it as intellectual if it denies God.  An example of this is the Multiverse Theory.  There is at this point no scientific evidence that there are billions of other universes outside of ours, yet for atheists to entertain this idea is intellectualism.  To even theorize about the Multiverse Theory one must immediately leave science behind. Yet, no matter what hypothesis the theist forwards or what evidence he gives for it, we are deluded.

2. UNDERSTANDING DISCREPANCY: In these debates with atheist, particularly Christopher Hitchens, they show not even a rudimentary understanding of what the bible actually teaches.  I point this out because atheists often insist that we don't understand science.  However, atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins do not even have a Sunday School grasp of Christian theology, much less the advanced knowledge they demand we have of science.  The only way that religion, and Christianity in particular, could be so misrepresented is for these guys to be ignorant of theology, or intentionally misrepresenting our view, neither of which are good options.  Frankly, it is hilarious to watch at times. The theists (Craig, D'souza, Lennox, Strobel, Wilson) that participate in these debates are much versed in philosophy and science than the atheist (Barker, Dawkins, Hitchins) are in theology.  If the theists only knew as much about philosophy and science as the atheists knew about theology (religion in general/Christianity specifically) they would not be given the time of day; no one would take them seriously.  The atheists need to do a much more serious job in their presentation of religion and Christianity in these debates. 

Resurrection: Proof of Theism and Christianity

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2  and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 3  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 

1 Corinthians 15:1-4. 14 ESV

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2  until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3  He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

Acts 1:1-3 ESV

The resurrection of Jesus is essential to Christianity and relevant to theism.  Theism (deism, Judaism, Islam, ect...) can be true if the resurrection is not true, but Christianity cannot be true apart from the resurrection of Christ.  The resurrection is relevant to theism in that if the resurrection is true, then so is theism, and consequently Christianity.  The resurrection, if true, is the ultimate proof of the existence of God.

The resurrection is central to the Christian claim.  If the resurrection is not true then Christianity is the largest hoax in the history of mankind.  This is why we as Christians must begin to reemphasize it as the central tenant of the faith.  I am writing this blog to encourage Christians of all creeds, especially young Christians, to focus on a defense of the historical resurrection of Jesus.  This is where the battle is.

I encourage all who read to make this the most important focus of your theological studies.  There are many other doctrines that the resurrection of Christ touches, but the resurrection is the most important. 

Who Is Raising Whom: Parents (us) or the Kid (Gia)?

This is the question that I was asking myself at supper tonight as my wife and I were trying to figure out if our 3 year old daughter was "playing us" or not.  My wife was attempting analyze her tactical maneuvering by asking me: is she (a) ?, (b) ? or (c)?  We had the funny feeling that we were out smarted by a 3 year old, never mind a 5th grader.

I feel so stupid having to have tactical planning sessions about a 3 year old kid.  Some days I feel like I need strategic and tactical response training; military grade, that is.  God have mercy on us as she becomes a teenager.

Example: At dinner tonight she did not like the particular form of family activities as they were not as child focused as she would have like.  We informed her she would just have to wait to do what she "really" wanted to do.  So she launched into a detailed and articulate argument about why she though our decision ought to be reversed: "...but one time I was doing some kid stuff and you guys wanted to do adult stuff and...."

We can't decide who is raising whom...the only thing I know for sure that was getting raised at supper was hades. :)

Milestone

Passed 40,000 blog hits.

Pendergrass-Weatherly Debate: Sing and Make Melody

Kevin Pendergrass, in his attempt to show that “sing AND make melody” refer to one action, put up a chart with several different illustrations to make his point: trespasses AND sins (Ephesians 2:1), rooted and grounded (Ephesians 3:17), offerings and sacrifices (Ephesians 5:2), gird, put on and shod (Ephesians 6:14-15), psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19).

However, in none of these illustrations are the items he listed one action. 

SINS AND TRESPASSES:

Sins and trespasses are not the same thing.  There are two separate offerings under the law for trespasses and sins.  There are a number of distinctions to me made between the two, but the ultimate point is that they are not one and the same action.

ROOTED AND GROUNDED:
Rooted has to do with nourishment and growth and the other has to do with stability and longevity.  Many distinct applications can be made between these two metaphors.  Even if one argues that the rooting and grounding happens at the same time, the same can be said for singing WITH musical accompaniment.


OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES:
It should be clear to even the casual observer that offerings and sacrifices are NOT one action like Pendergrass claims that "singing and making melody" are.  There were drink offerings that clearly were not the same action as an animal sacrifices.


GIRD, PUT ON AND SHOD:
No one should think that the girding of the loins is the the same action as having one's feet shod.  Girding the loins and putting on shoes obviously requires two separate actions.

PSALM, HYMN, SPIRITUAL SONG:
A hymn is not a psalm, and a spiritual song is neither a psalm nor a hymn.

These are distinct items just as singing and making melody are.  This in no way proves that singing AND making melody to the Lord are a single action and not two.

I encourage you to listen to the debate. 

Debate Firsts

I have had a lot of debate firsts: My first debate. My first oral debate. My first written debate. My first godhead debate. My first Eternal security debate. My first communion debate. My first baptism debate. My first impeccability debate. My first marriage and divorce debate. My first debate with a Church of Christ. My first debate with a Baptist. My first debate to be a moderator. I am sure that the list could go on, but last in the Weatherly-Pendergrass debate was another first.

MY FIRST DEBATE WHERE A POINT OF ORDER WAS IGNORED!

Thursday night of the debate I called a point of order 4-5 times and it was ignored by both the debater (Kevin Pendergrass) and his moderator (David Fanning).  I have never seen this happen in any debate.  Unprecedented!

Their excuse was that they did not think that they were breaking any rules so they did not have to acknowledge our point of order.  Any time a point of order is called by the other team you owe them the courtesy of acknowledging their grievance.  If they had call a point of order we would have given them the respect they deserved as out opponents.  It was disrespectful to say the least. 

A New Beginning Called Grace

Today we adopted a 3 year old girl that we have had for over a year and a half.  When we got her, she was suffering from a myriad of past abuses.  Today the little girl who came to us as Regena James took on a new identity as Gia Grace Carroll.  The miracle of transformation that has already taken place in her life was formalized by Judge Nance Berger in the 322nd District Court, Tarrant County, Fort Worth, Texas.

Three things of significance occurred on this day: 1. She was, as it were, born again. She will receive a new birth certificate that will show Dana and I as if we were her birth parents. 2. Secondly, she received a new name. 3. Her past records were sealed by the courts and her first/old parents can never access any of her records.  The only one that can access the records is the Judge and the court.  In extreme cases and only at the Judges discretion we, as her new parents, may see them.

DON'T MAKE ME PREACH! :)

Today the old abuses, fears and scars are forever buried.  This is a story of a new birth record, a new identity and a forgotten past.  She has began a new life, with new family, and a new identity called Grace.

Wrong Basis for Friendships

We all have various relationships that serve different needs in our lives, and we must.  But larger than the need the friendship serves is the basis upon which it is built.  I have lived long enough to see and be involved in too many relationships that are built on ideological sameness.  It is the ideological equivalent to same-sex marriage.  Relationships that are not built on people, but ideology, is doomed to fail.  Ideologically driven friendships will abandon you when you no longer serve the agenda or they no longer like you.  People who are ideologically driven in their relationships will only be loyal to you as long as you are loyal to the ideology, and the moment that you cease to be loyal to the ideology they will cease to be loyal to you.  No relationship is sacred to the person who is ideologically driven no matter how long it has been in place.

Never seek to retain and maintain relationships with people with whom ideology means more to them than people do.  Be wary of anyone who views ideology as indispensable, but people as dispensable.  If you have a friend that you have watched abandon someone over political expedience, then it is just a matter of time until you become a political liability and you will also be abandoned.  If the only reason I am in your life is to forward your agenda then let me go now and quit wasting my time.

I am sure that I have used relationships in this way, but I pray to God that He grants me grace to never do it again. I have learned over the last 5-10 years to take friendships seriously.  I am loyal and pray that I always will be.  I do not forget loyalty when it is shown me.  I am friends with people that are social assets, and I am friends with people that are social liabilities.  And I am as equally loyal to the one group as I am the other.  I have about 8 friends that I am sold out to.  Lots of others that I am glad to have in my life.  I pray that God places more friends in my life as I go along life's journey.  

Sometimes life is going to make you friends with people that does not make sense to the onlooker.  One of the most foolish things one can do as an outsider is to try to make judgments about why two people are friends.  Never think that because someone is publicly loyal to a person that they have not privately disagreed or even rebuked that person.  All public loyalty means is that the person means more than the issue does. 

Weatherly-Pendergrass Debate.