Think About IT: A Calvinist creates his version of my position, and then responds accordingly!

Read the following carefully. It is supposed to be a critique of my theological position found in my book Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist. Please note, this Calvinist and my brother in Christ says all of this without having read my book—this all comes from an interview of my testimony on sbctoday.com —and please note what he says I said, then go back and read the exact thing I said, and then if you want a lesson in rapid-fire ad-hominem arguments well, look no further. Enough said.

The following is an excerpt, and his full “critique” from Tuesday, July 17, 2012 can be found here. Continue reading →

Think About IT: Pastor’s Complicity with Science’s Debasement of MAN

The Primates House was the main attraction at the famous Bronx Zoological Gardens in 1906. But what brought amazed smiles from curious adults and squeals of joy from happy children was no ape—it was a human being named Ota Benga. ((For the sources from which this biographical sketch is drawn, see Phillips Verner Bradford and Harvey Blume, Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo (New York: St. Martin’s, 1992) and Jerry Bergman, “Ota Benga: The Story of the Pygmy on Display in a Zoo,” Revolution against Evolution Website, www.rae.org/otabenga.html (accessed August 18, 2008).)) A sign in front of the cage in which this man was confined told viewers that he was a twenty-three-year-old African pygmy, 4 feet 11 inches tall, 103 pounds. Ota was displayed like a blue-ribbon pig at the county fair because here, supposedly, was a crucial link showing that man had evolved naturally from apes. Thus, in a sad twist of irony, evolutionists known for making men out of apes here essentially made an ape out of a man. Continue reading →

Think About IT: Christianity Is Not Just Good!

If Christianity were simply good, one could be inclined towards it or not. There are many good things, ideas, sayings, etc. Even the way we present the desirability of Christianity is oftentimes based upon the goodness of Christianity, e.g. emphasizing what it can do for you or has done for others, etc. This leads to the common opine about the inquisitions, crusades, witches, and other actual or perceived evil fostered on the world by Christianity.

While each of these historical incidents can be dealt with individually and sufficiently by considering all the evidence, and Christianity is indeed good, the goodness of Christianity is actually secondary to her most outstanding attribute, which is the fact that Christianity is True!. Actually it is that Christianity is absolutely true that makes her ultimately good. Consequently, people have to deal with whether Christianity is true regardless if they think she brings good for the world. For example, the existence of the devil is not good, but the real issue is his existence is true.

Eternally, the question of whether heaven and hell actually exist is not determined by whether or not that appears as good to someone, anyone, or everyone, but rather is it true.

Jesus said, “Sanctify them in Truth, Your word is Truth.” (John 17:17). The message of Jesus and the faithful church is the same,  “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

It is that truth which people must deal with.

Think About IT: Forgiving the Unforgivable

Bill Elliff was one of my predecessors at Trinity Baptist Church, and he is also the one who recommended me to the church. I have heard Bill and Tom Elliff speak a few times about the divorce of their parents and how difficult it was. I found the following synopsis of their mother’s struggle and thought you might be blessed by her love, faith, and forgiveness. Continue reading →

Think About IT: Islam in Europe and then in America

Christian German news agency Idea reported, “A German hospital removed twelve crosses, supposedly due to objections from Muslim patients.

Workers in the Bad Soden hospital near Frankfurt took off the crosses from the wall in front of the patients and put them in trash bags, which led to criticism by patients.

Director Helmuth Hahn-Klimroth had his employees do the job with the required prudence. Crosses aren’t considered common furnishings in a general hospital, according to the director.

The crosses come from the surgical department of a hospital which was Roman Catholic till 1974.” ((http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/02/frankfurt-hospital-removes-crosses.html, accessed 2/25/10))

The secularists of America laud such Muslim objections until the Muslims begin to point their objections toward the secularist, which they most certainly will do!

Think About IT: Stephen Hawking lives in fear

Steven Hawking is acclaimed as the greatest scientific mind since Albert Einstein, which I have no reason to doubt; however, his erudition does nothing to bring peace to his soul, but rather launches him into pessimism and looking in all the wrong places for meaning and security.

Hawking was questioned on CNN about why he wanted to take a zero gravity flight. “Many people have asked me why I am taking this flight. I am doing it for many reasons,” he said before the flight. “First of all, I believe that life on Earth is at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus, or other dangers. I think the human race has no future if it doesn’t go into space. I therefore want to encourage public interest in space.”[1]

Interviewed by The Telegraph in the UK he said, “I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I’m an optimist. We will reach out to the stars.”[2]

Hawking told the BBC “that life could be wiped out by a nuclear disaster or an asteroid hitting the planet.” Then the Cambridge academic added, “Once we spread out into space and establish colonies, our future should be safe.” He says humans have to go to another star.[3]

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” (John 6:47)



[1]Http://web.archive.org/web/20070504171857/http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/04/26/hawking.flight.ap/index.html; accessed 3/14/10
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1359562/Colonies-in-space-may-be-only-hope-says-Hawking.html Telegraph;   10/16/01 accessed 3/14/10
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6158855.stm,  Accessed 3/14/10

Why it is immoral and impossible to exclude one’s religious views from the Public Square Debate?

As many of you know, I participated in the Oxford Round Table at Harris Manchester College in Oxford in July. I presented a paper entitled “A Proposal for a Proportional Accommodation and Appreciation Model For Governing the Relationship of Church and State.”  I am presently working to make that paper into a book.

However, because of the October 2010 proclamation of “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender history month in the city of Norman”  and the current desire of the Human Rights Commission to change the wording of some governing documents of Norman to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected classes, as well as the intentions of others that are seeking to capitalize on what they see as a “gay sympathetic” Chief of Police, Mayor, and City Council, I wanted to blog an excerpt of the moral argument that I gave in the paper.

Once published, the book will give constitutional, intellectual, historical and moral arguments defending the right, need, and appropriateness of bringing our religious convictions into the public square.  There will also be footnote references to the book in this blog.  But in order to help us understand and articulate that appropriateness in light of the current local political situation, I am posting the moral argument.  Prayerfully, the book will be out soon.  Following is a section of the moral argument.

Thus, the question is, “Is it moral and rational to exclude religious opinions from our republic or democratic public marketplace of ideas just because those opinions involve an aspect of faith—a faith assumption?”  For the following reasons, my answer is NO. Continue reading →